RNC vs DNC: More People Watched Trump's Speech Than Hillary's, but more DNC views than RNC views - Polidicks

[QUOTE=Tudd;50803198]The most depressing thing on here is how triggered you guys get over someone mere mentioning Trump in a neutral way and not even voting for him.[/QUOTE] To be fair, Trump and the platform following him have a fair number of points that put them at a negative viewpoint to quite a number of people. Believing vaccines cause autism, wishing to have religion in a non-secular context be taught in school, thinking coal is a good resource for the future, making abortion illegal, wanting to use torture even if it doesn't work, calling on a foreign power to release documents that hurt another candidate, thinking that killing families of terrorists will be a good tactic to stop them, war crimes in killing civilians is a good idea, giving large tax cuts to the top percent, praising dictatorships, default on debt, frankly a lot of stuff that a great number of people are opposed. There is going to be a negative aura to discussing those who have a great potential to do corrupt acts under our country's name regardless of who it is. Will it be the end of the world if Trump is elected, no, but there is certainly a great potential to screw a lot up in 4 short years. Dependent on who he appoints to a variety of positions, follies could last far far longer than 8 years. This isn't a discussion on tv personalities, this is a discussion on future leaders for quite a major country that could affect hundreds of millions in it, and billions everywhere else.

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;50803279]What makes you so certain Trump has your interests at heart at all?[/QUOTE] See I don't even present any support for Trump in that post, nor was even talking about his policies, and immediately you are on the attack. Like way to ignore the point I was trying to make. [editline]30th July 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=AnnieOakley;50803308]To be fair, Trump and the platform following him have a fair number of points that put them at a negative viewpoint to quite a number of people. Believing vaccines cause autism, wishing to have religion in a non-secular context be taught in school, thinking coal is a good resource for the future, making abortion illegal, wanting to use torture even if it doesn't work, calling on a foreign power to release documents that hurt another candidate, thinking that killing families of terrorists will be a good tactic to stop them, war crimes in killing civilians is a good idea, giving large tax cuts to the top percent, praising dictatorships, default on debt, frankly a lot of stuff that a great number of people are opposed. There is going to be a negative aura to discussing those who have a great potential to do corrupt acts under our country's name regardless of who it is. Will it be the end of the world if Trump is elected, no, but there is certainly a great potential to screw a lot up in 4 short years. Dependent on who he appoints to a variety of positions, follies could last far far longer than 8 years. This isn't a discussion on tv personalities, this is a discussion on future leaders for quite a major country that could affect hundreds of millions in it, and billions everywhere else.[/QUOTE] I don't mind people being critical of Trump. What I find ridiculous is the amount of personal offense some people seem to take on here at the mere mention of someone even talking about Trump in a neutral/positive way.

[QUOTE=Tudd;50803835]See I don't even present any support for Trump in that post, nor was even talking about his policies, and immediately you are on the attack. Like way to ignore the point I was trying to make. [editline]30th July 2016[/editline] I don't mind people being critical of Trump. What I find ridiculous is the amount of personal offense some people seem to take on here at the mere mention of someone even talking about Trump in a neutral/positive way.[/QUOTE] He asked a pretty straightforward question, hardly an attack. Seems like the only triggered here is you.

[QUOTE=Tudd;50803835] I don't mind people being critical of Trump. What I find ridiculous is the amount of personal offensesome people seem to take on here at the mere mention of someone even talking about Trump in a neutral/positive way.[/QUOTE] Well such is going to happen in a forum. People are going to be set in their way more often than not. The thing to take away from it is to find what one can accurately foresee in the candidate. Unfortunately this election is a negative one when it seems neither candidate is truly very likable by quite a number, making it a contest of who's worse. Repercussions will come from both, as does all president, but the question is who will bring the worst and how long it lasts. If you truly care for Trump, I'd like to know which plans of his you want him in office for. I think it'd help to understand where you're coming from in terms of your choice to vote for him.

[QUOTE=Tudd;50803835] I don't mind people being critical of Trump. What I find ridiculous is the amount of personal offense some people seem to take on here at the mere mention of someone even talking about Trump in a neutral/positive way.[/QUOTE] Comes across as projection since it seems like Sobotnik's post hit a nerve. Perhaps you need a safe space?

[QUOTE=Raidyr;50803876]He asked a pretty straightforward question, hardly an attack. Seems like the only triggered here is you.[/QUOTE] Psh, you are probably the most triggered person regarding anything Trump related. Also it was a Straightforward question that really had nothing to do with the point I was making and would derail back to endless Trump banter. [editline]31st July 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=AnnieOakley;50803886]Well such is going to happen in a forum. People are going to be set in their way more often than not. The thing to take away from it is to find what one can accurately foresee in the candidate. Unfortunately this election is a negative one when it seems neither candidate is truly very likable by quite a number, making it a contest of who's worse. Repercussions will come from both, as does all president, but the question is who will bring the worst and how long it lasts. If you truly care for Trump, I'd like to know which plans of his you want him in office for. I think it'd help to understand where you're coming from in terms of your choice to vote for him.[/QUOTE] As you mention, it's one gigantic election with tons of negatives. I personally am going to vote Trump (Or Gary Johnson) because I think the worst-case scenario people imagine on here won't actually happen first of all. His ego and statements are that of a business person who makes far reaching claims so that he can drive motivation or bargaining power, that ultimately the senate and others will force him to tone down or go into a gridlock. I also think Clinton and the foundation surrounding her could do far more damage getting around checks and balances as they have already proven capable of doing multiple times. The amount of scandals behind her and her performance in actual political offices like secretary of state would make me never consider her for presidency. This is the part where I get told I am retarded for suggesting Trump is more qualified than Hillary. And so here is where I really hope appointments (like Trey Gowdy to Attorney General) would be stronger than Hillary's. If she had surrounded herself with people from Sander's camp then maybe I would consider she might've "changed her ways for good" but that isn't happening. Foreign policy-wise they both suck (even Bernie was abit). Clinton is better for western countries, but utterly not respected in Russia or the Middle East. Trump on the other hand with his previous businesses will do stronger in China, and with his arrogance strangely do better with Russia/ME. Those countries and their leaders are typically bullies who have obviously not responded to Obama's approach to foreign policy in some cases (Saudi Arabia not even respecting his last visit comes to mind). I think Trump on the other hand would be "carry a big stick" kind of dude that won't be liked, but will get deals done with those leaders. Not cause WW3 like some people would have us believe, but he will be mocked in western countries. Economically, I think Clinton will just try to push off current problems. As evidenced by such plans like her College debt plan, which "solves" the problem of student debt by having the government pay it off after 20 years. It sounds nice, but it doesn't fix the root problems. Her highly likely support for such plans like the TPP (and previous Nafta) is another cause for concern. Trump's economic plans largely focuses on high cost industries being more competitive, retaining companies in America, and revising the H1-B Visa system that is currently being abused are what interest me alot, but I know his Tax plan is viewed unfavorably. And thus I hope this gets more refined and could change my vote sometime during the election. In 4 years hopefully people will come up with real decisions and get more into the process. Until then, I don't see why people need to label Trump Supporters as man-babies, when their choice is equally shit.

[QUOTE=Tudd;50804005]Psh, you are probably the most triggered person regarding anything Trump related. Also it was a Straightforward question that really had nothing to do with the point I was making and would derail back to endless Trump banter.[/QUOTE] The only person who derailed the thread was you and then you whine about "endless Trump banter" after making the longest post on this page. Are you okay. [QUOTE=Tudd;50804005] I personally am going to vote Trump (Or Gary Johnson) because I think the worst-case scenario people imagine on here won't actually happen first of all. His ego and statements are that of a business person who makes far reaching claims so that he can drive motivation or bargaining power, that ultimately the senate and others will force him to tone down or go into a gridlock. [/QUOTE] He probably wouldn't be able to achieve all the hare-brained schemes he wants but that doesn't mean those schemes are immune to criticism. Also if it's a GOP controlled Senate (whos platform shifted to the right this year to accomodate his nomination) there wouldn't be that much gridlock should they remain in control of Congress. [QUOTE=Tudd;50804005]I also think Clinton and the foundation surrounding her could do far more damage getting around checks and balances as they have already proven capable of doing multiple times. The amount of scandals behind her and her performance in actual political offices like secretary of state would make me never consider her for presidency. [/QUOTE] What checks and balances? What damage? I mean I'll applaud you for attempting to answer the question I asked other Trumpets two pages ago but this still pretty vague, simply telling me that Clinton has the power or influence to protect her as she brings to fruition her master evil plan that is...what? [QUOTE=Tudd;50804005]This is the part where I get told I am retarded for suggesting Trump is more qualified than Hillary. And so here is where I really hope appointments (like Trey Gowdy to Attorney General) would be stronger than Hillary's. If she had surrounded herself with people from Sander's camp then maybe I would consider she might've "changed her ways for good" but that isn't happening.[/QUOTE] Who from Sanders camp would make a good AG? [QUOTE=Tudd;50804005]Foreign policy-wise they both suck (even Bernie was abit). Clinton is better for western countries, but utterly not respected in Russia or the Middle East. Trump on the other hand with his previous businesses will do stronger in China, and with his arrogance strangely do better with Russia/ME. Those countries and their leaders are typically bullies who have obviously not responded to Obama's approach to foreign policy in some cases (Saudi Arabia not even respecting his last visit comes to mind). I think Trump on the other hand would be "carry a big stick" kind of dude that won't be liked, but will get deals done with those leaders. Not cause WW3 like some people would have us believe, but he will be mocked in western countries.[/QUOTE] You completely misunderstand the relationship between Trump and Putin if you think Putin is a bully that Trump is going to stand up to. Additionally, whether or not Obama is respected by Saudi Arabia doesn't matter. We still enjoy lucrative trade and security deals with them that I don't imagine would end under a Clinton presidency. The entire "No one respects America but they will respect me" meme that Trump wants to push is total horseshit. Every world leader except Putin (who sees him as a useful idiot) and North Korea (probably for the same reasons) has disavowed him. No diplomats that matter would respect him over Clinton. He is a big mess. [QUOTE=Tudd;50804005]Economically, I think Clinton will just try to push off current problems. As evidenced by such plans like her College debt plan, which "solves" the problem of student debt by having the government pay it off after 20 years. It sounds nice, but it doesn't fix the root problems. Her highly likely support for such plans like the TPP (and previous Nafta) is another cause for concern. Trump's economic plans largely focuses on high cost industries being more competitive, retaining companies in America, and revising the H1-B Visa system that is currently being abused are what interest me alot, but I know his Tax plan is viewed unfavorably. And thus I hope this gets more refined and could change my vote sometime during the election.[/QUOTE] Her plan is better than Trumps non-existent one, Clinton and the DNC have been against TPP for the entire campaign and underscored it in their platform, and Trump's economic plans would drive up the cost of goods and services while maybe generating increased low-paying jobs. [QUOTE=Tudd;50804005]In 4 years hopefully people will come up with real decisions and get more into the process. Until then, I don't see why people need to label Trump Supporters as man-babies, when their choice is equally shit. [/QUOTE] In four years we will all be talking about how this Clinton presidency wasn't that bad actually. Nobody is labeling Trump supporters man-babies, it's Sanders supporters who switch to Trump purely out of spite that are man-babies.

[QUOTE=Tudd;50804005]I personally am going to vote Trump (Or Gary Johnson) because I think the worst-case scenario people imagine on here won't actually happen first of all. His ego and statements are that of a business person who makes far reaching claims so that he can drive motivation or bargaining power, that ultimately the senate and others will force him to tone down or go into a gridlock.[/QUOTE] I don't know if the representative for your country should be a loudmouthed egotistical sexist who names everything after himself and mocks the disabled though. It might just give people the wrong impression about your country (or the right one).

[QUOTE=RIPBILLYMAYS;50797585]Ignoring the content of each candidates speeches, I think Trump does a much better job of captivating his audience in his speeches. He's got [B][I]HIGH ENERGY[/I][/B] even when he uses teleprompters. I don't think Clinton paces herself in an interesting way.[/QUOTE] He's got better energy for sure, but his speeches are rambling messes. They are barely coherent. He leaps around from point to point with no apparent destination in mind. He comes across as being ill prepared and easily flustered.

[QUOTE=FlashMarsh;50797686]Barack Obama, Michelle Obama, Bill Clinton, Joe Biden and Cory Booker all delivered better speeches than any speaker at the entire RNC. I don't think this is a debatable assessment. Hillary Clinton's own speech may not have been quite as impressive, but she has never been more than a competent public speaker, but neither was Trump's bizarre rambling speech which she aptly described as 'Midnight in America'. Something I did note was the constant appeals to patriotism and to America. I think in Britain, far too many people miss this as a tool. All of the greatest progressive and left-wing orators are so effective because they aren't just a radical. They also appeal to some kind of tradition and conservatism within the public. Martin Luther King hit these chords extraordinarily well, by appealing to religion and quoting the Bible, and [URL="http://www.economist.com/blogs/prospero/2013/08/martin-luther-kings-dream-speech"]reminding[/URL] his audience 'That all men—yes, black men as well as white men—would be guaranteed the unalienable rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness', appealing to Thomas Jefferson's words. Barack Obama, whether or not you agree with his politics or think he is an effective leader, is undoubtedly and undeniably one of the most gifted orators in American politics. But he too appeals to America. I have some criticisms in how this is done - I am skeptical of the 'proposition nation' (nation shared by ideology), but it still forms a major part of his speech linking seamlessly the founding fathers, the American Dream with progressive politics and issues of the present. Tony Benn, one of the greatest speakers in the left in Britain, who has still not been surpassed by his supposed proteges on the left, appealed to British radical tradition of the Chartists and the Levelers. Hilary Benn, arguing forcefully for British intervention in Syria in one of the finest parliamentary speeches for many years, appealed to the left-wing anti-fascist tradition. Yet Trump, and his fellow cultist on the other side of the Atlantic and the spectrum, Jeremy Corbyn, do none of this. The right in America loves to try to [URL="http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/29/opinion/who-loves-america.html"]own[/URL] patriotism. Yet as Paul Krugman notes, this has all become a facade to hide something very dark in recent years among many Republicans. Because in reality, the reason why Donald Trump and Jeremy Corbyn don't appeal to patriotism and America or Britain in the way in which their opponents do is because they don't just want to change the politics of the country, they wish they could change the people within it. It is no accident that Trump is so friendly with Vladimir Putin, despite being one of the greatest enemies of America. It is no accident that Jeremy Corbyn and other left-wingers, frustrated at their own 'brainwashed' proletariat who refuse to revolt, jet off to Latin America to find their excitement. They claim to want to represent the 'working class', yet they're more scared of them than upper-class Tories, so horrified by their views on the EU, or on the death penalty, or on patriotism and the Queen, that they declare them to be brainwashed and wash their hands of them, preferring to faff about protesting Israel or the West in general. Read the twitter bio of any white nationalist, and you will notice that they are not so nationalist and internal after all. They frequently profess support to not only the nationalist of their own, but to Trump, Marie le Pen, Geert Wilders and Orban simultaneously. The reality is that these supposed 'patriots' don't love their country in the slightest. Trump thinks it is midnight in America, not because the military is 'weak' (it isn't) or the economy is a 'disaster' (it did well compared to other developed countries). It is midnight in America because of the people of America are not who they want to represent. They hate the fact that representing America is not just representing white people, or Christians, or straight people. They want to change the people of America, not change the politics, to be more white, more Christian. They don't [I]want[/I] their politics to represent Muslims, or black Americans, or Latinos. These people are almost dirty and unwanted to them regardless of their faith in the country. Jeremy Corbyn wants to replace his people with an excitable Latin American proletariat who may give him his revolution. This is why ultimately the appeals to patriotism of both these 'leaders' (if you can even call what they do this) ring so hollow, if they bother at all. To do this, you need to think there is something good, something great about the country, and the people within it, even if you think things are badly wrong. You can't just rant about how bad everything is, offer no serious solutions (both have formulated almost no serious policy of their own at all). Everyone knows there are problems in America. Because, however, blind anger rather than hard policy work and difficult decisions have been fetishised across the Atlantic by the Tea Party and Occupy Wall Street, whilst Corbyn sits dead in the polls, this clown can stand a change at becoming the next President. Trump isn't a patriot. He undermines everything that America means. America means liberty and democracy, he is a wannabe dictator. America is a nation of immigrants and a chance for a better life, he wants to deport them and ban them from the country. America is a shining beacon and the leader of the free world, Trump wants to thuggishly squeeze money out of his allies, buddy up with its enemies, and engage in war crimes. Neither of them see this and that is why I think any claim that they are patriotic (especially Trump) is obviously false. I am usually fairly relaxed about political events, as I think most things do tend to be overblown and eventually work themselves out. I am genuinely fearful of a West led by Donald Trump. I don't know if we can recover, and I don't know if America could recover.[/QUOTE] Brilliant post - thanks for so eloquently putting into words what we've found so hard to express.

[QUOTE=Tudd;50804005]Psh, you are probably the most triggered person regarding anything Trump related. Also it was a Straightforward question that really had nothing to do with the point I was making and would derail back to endless Trump banter.[/quote] Why would I answer your question seriously if you're just gonna talk about it hmm? [QUOTE=Tudd;50804005]As you mention, it's one gigantic election with tons of negatives. I personally am going to vote Trump (Or Gary Johnson) because I think the worst-case scenario people imagine on here won't actually happen first of all. His ego and statements are that of a business person who makes far reaching claims so that he can drive motivation or bargaining power, that ultimately the senate and others will force him to tone down or go into a gridlock. I also think Clinton and the foundation surrounding her could do far more damage getting around checks and balances as they have already proven capable of doing multiple times. The amount of scandals behind her and her performance in actual political offices like secretary of state would make me never consider her for presidency. This is the part where I get told I am retarded for suggesting Trump is more qualified than Hillary. And so here is where I really hope appointments (like Trey Gowdy to Attorney General) would be stronger than Hillary's. If she had surrounded herself with people from Sander's camp then maybe I would consider she might've "changed her ways for good" but that isn't happening. Foreign policy-wise they both suck (even Bernie was abit). Clinton is better for western countries, but utterly not respected in Russia or the Middle East. Trump on the other hand with his previous businesses will do stronger in China, and with his arrogance strangely do better with Russia/ME. Those countries and their leaders are typically bullies who have obviously not responded to Obama's approach to foreign policy in some cases (Saudi Arabia not even respecting his last visit comes to mind). I think Trump on the other hand would be "carry a big stick" kind of dude that won't be liked, but will get deals done with those leaders. Not cause WW3 like some people would have us believe, but he will be mocked in western countries. Economically, I think Clinton will just try to push off current problems. As evidenced by such plans like her College debt plan, which "solves" the problem of student debt by having the government pay it off after 20 years. It sounds nice, but it doesn't fix the root problems. Her highly likely support for such plans like the TPP (and previous Nafta) is another cause for concern. Trump's economic plans largely focuses on high cost industries being more competitive, retaining companies in America, and revising the H1-B Visa system that is currently being abused are what interest me alot, but I know his Tax plan is viewed unfavorably. And thus I hope this gets more refined and could change my vote sometime during the election. In 4 years hopefully people will come up with real decisions and get more into the process. Until then, I don't see why people need to label Trump Supporters as man-babies, when their choice is equally shit.[/QUOTE] But you just wrote all that and still only managed one actual factual plan or policy that trump has that makes you want to vote for him. (Appointing Trey Gowdy) Saying stuff like "Trump's economic plans largely focuses on high cost industries being more competitive" really doesn't say anything, as per usual Trump baby babble.