Octopus Overlords

hepcat wrote:Replace Hillary with Trumputin and change the caption to, "Hello little girl, you're going to be wife number 4 in a few years.".

Or Bill Clinton with Hey, sweet thang, let's go have a little fun before my wife gets home.

Or replace Hillary with Trumputin and the little girl with a 12 year old Ivanka and...well...you know where we're going with this.

Of course hep at least waits until the girl is 18 in his joke, of course rip makes the pedo joke. But those are probably the same in 2016.

In my second version, I added a 12 year old Ivanka though.

But that's only because of those creepy interviews with Trumputin in which he states he'd date his daughter if he weren't her dad.

Clinton took the stage in Greensboro, NC today to the sound of "I Feel Good" by James Brown. A bit on the nose, but still got a chuckle out of me.

Captain Caveman wrote:Clinton took the stage in Greensboro, NC today to the sound of "I Feel Good" by James Brown. A bit on the nose, but still got a chuckle out of me.

Ironic since James Brown was a Republican.

Moliere wrote:

Captain Caveman wrote:Clinton took the stage in Greensboro, NC today to the sound of "I Feel Good" by James Brown. A bit on the nose, but still got a chuckle out of me.

Ironic since James Brown was a Republican.

95% of the artists used by Republicans at their rallies would never vote for them. The other 5% is Lee Greenwood.

Captain Caveman wrote:

Moliere wrote:

Captain Caveman wrote:Clinton took the stage in Greensboro, NC today to the sound of "I Feel Good" by James Brown. A bit on the nose, but still got a chuckle out of me.

Ironic since James Brown was a Republican.

95% of the artists used by Republicans at their rallies would never vote for them. The other 5% is Lee Greenwood.

And 95% of those artists freak out when Republicans use their songs.

Captain Caveman wrote:

Moliere wrote:

Captain Caveman wrote:Clinton took the stage in Greensboro, NC today to the sound of "I Feel Good" by James Brown. A bit on the nose, but still got a chuckle out of me.

Ironic since James Brown was a Republican.

95% of the artists used by Republicans at their rallies would never vote for them. The other 5% is Lee Greenwood.

I cannot stand by and let you get away with not mentioning Ted Nugent.

Which Nuge songs do they play?

Alefroth wrote:Which Nuge songs do they play?

Not at the Presidential level, but I've heard "Stranglehold" played in local politics.

hepcat will be happy that Hillary is shaming millennials who might vote outside the 2 party duopoly.

While still optimistic that the race will turn decisively back in Mrs. Clinton’s favor after the debates, leading Democrats have been alarmed by the drift of young voters toward the third-party candidates.

The principal “super PAC” supporting Mrs. Clinton’s candidacy, Priorities USA Action, has concluded from its polling and other research that the reluctance to embrace the Democratic nominee among those who intensely dislike Mr. Trump is not going away and must be confronted.

“We’ll be launching a multimillion-dollar digital campaign that talks about what’s at stake and how a vote for a third-party candidate is a vote for Donald Trump, who is against everything these voters stand for,” said Justin Barasky, a strategist for Priorities USA.

I can believe it. I totally understand the appeal of Gary Johnson but in states where he could siphon votes away from Hillary and that might make the difference in the general election? The fear is real. My vote in NJ doesn't matter at all so I could pull the lever for an 3rd party candidate and (I guess) sleep well every night for the next 4 years knowing I voted to support my beliefs. If I lived in a battleground state? I just don't know. But shaming people for it? I don't see that working out. If nothing else it just highlights the ridiculousness of our system here and the sham that it all is.

EDIT: Though I guess it would be pretty cool if the silent majority voted a 3rd party candidate into the role of President over our collective mutual disgust for Hillary and Trump.

Moliere wrote:hepcat will be happy that Hillary is shaming millennials who might vote outside the 2 party duopoly.

Why would that make me happy?

hepcat wrote:

Moliere wrote:hepcat will be happy that Hillary is shaming millennials who might vote outside the 2 party duopoly.

Why would that make me happy?

Because you dislike Gary Johnson and consider him a spoiler?

Smoove_B wrote: But shaming people for it? I don't see that working out.

Gaslighting the dissenters has been going on since the primaries, only now the tone is changing from arrogance to desperation, a sort of game theory that an absuer might play. I imagine the amplification of social media and one liner political thinking will have pushed many voters to the point of no return, having attacked and been attacked for the last 8 months and then being expected to present as a unified front doesn't seem so likely.

Still, I think Clinton has it in the bag but 2020 is going to be scary as hell.

LordMortis wrote:

Smoove_B wrote: But shaming people for it? I don't see that working out.

Gaslighting the dissenters has been going on since the primaries, only now the tone is changing from arrogance to desperation, a sort of game theory that an absuer might play. I imagine the amplification of social media and one liner political thinking will have pushed many voters to the point of no return, having attacked and been attacked for the last 8 months and then being expected to present as a unified front doesn't seem so likely.

Still, I think Clinton has it in the bag but 2020 is going to be scary as hell.

For the record, there is nothing in that article that points to shaming. Obviously we haven't seen the ads, but the language in article doesn't hint at shaming.

I get the feeling that Team Hillary originally anticipated Johnson pulling more votes from Trump than from her. As it's turning out that third party voting is hurting her, she's pivoting strategy a bit.

LordMortis wrote:
Still, I think Clinton has it in the bag but 2020 is going to be scary as hell.

I think that 2020 will be an interesting election. It is when we will really see the impact of Trump and Sanders, and just how much the events of 2016 frightened the established parties.

coopasonic wrote:For the record, there is nothing in that article that points to shaming. Obviously we haven't seen the ads, but the language in article doesn't hint at shaming.

Agreed. It reads more as an attempt at educating than shaming.

Moliere wrote:

hepcat wrote:

Moliere wrote:hepcat will be happy that Hillary is shaming millennials who might vote outside the 2 party duopoly.

Why would that make me happy?

Because you dislike Gary Johnson and consider him a spoiler?

I don't support Gary Johnson because I think he's had some shady dealings with the Koch brothers in the past, but mostly because I don't support the Libertarian point of view. If the Green Party had presented us with a viable candidate, I would probably lean that way. But unfortunately, we are also faced with a monumentally awful candidate in Trump, and whether or not you want to admit it, there really are only two choices this election season: Trump or Clinton.

That doesn't mean I wholeheartedly support a two party only system, it just means I understand fully what's at stake this time around.

p.s. I've never once called Johnson a spoiler.

coopasonic wrote:For the record, there is nothing in that article that points to shaming. Obviously we haven't seen the ads, but the language in article doesn't hint at shaming.

Guilt? The ads are meant to scare people, especially millennials, away from Jill and Gary.

coopasonic wrote:For the record, there is nothing in that article that points to shaming. Obviously we haven't seen the ads, but the language in article doesn't hint at shaming.

The ads playing in Michigan are already echoing the OO democratic cry that if you don't vote for Clinton you are voting for Trump, just like this:

“We’ll be launching a multimillion-dollar digital campaign that talks about what’s at stake and how a vote for a third-party candidate is a vote for Donald Trump, who is against everything these voters stand for,” said Justin Barasky, a strategist for Priorities USA.

That the Clinton faithful can't see this as shaming, well good luck bringing these young upstarts back to fold.

Maybe they'll show Hillary is the safe space. Jill and Gary get pretty scary once you pick up the rocks they hide under.

Moliere wrote:

coopasonic wrote:For the record, there is nothing in that article that points to shaming. Obviously we haven't seen the ads, but the language in article doesn't hint at shaming.

Guilt? The ads are meant to scare people, especially millennials, away from Jill and Gary.

All political ads during campaigns are designed to scare people away from opponents.

Apparently we have a very different definition of shaming. I believe that it is possible to point out pros and cons and educate. Then leave it up to the recipient to come to the "correct" (or at least desired) conclusion. You apparently believe that anything that suggests their beliefs may be incorrect is shaming?

If I don't have all the facts, and someone presents me with new/additional facts (which I should/would probably verify independently), and I subsequently change my stance/opinion, I don't consider myself "shamed".

That said, maybe you have a better understanding of how the "upstarts" will respond. I no longer expect the "average" person to act logically...

Also, my statement was solely based on the linked snip-it. It is entirely possible that the actual ads will take a shaming tack.

It's all in the delivery. If it is educational and avoids condescension, it should be fine. If it goes to fear-mongering, then yeah, not cool.

hepcat wrote:

Moliere wrote:

coopasonic wrote:For the record, there is nothing in that article that points to shaming. Obviously we haven't seen the ads, but the language in article doesn't hint at shaming.

Guilt? The ads are meant to scare people, especially millennials, away from Jill and Gary.

All political ads during campaigns are designed to scare people away from opponents.

What, there aren't any positive ads any more? Or did you just mean for this election?

TheMix wrote:Apparently we have a very different definition of shaming. I believe that it is possible to point out pros and cons and educate. Then leave it up to the recipient to come to the "correct" (or at least desired) conclusion. You apparently believe that anything that suggests their beliefs may be incorrect is shaming?

If I don't have all the facts, and someone presents me with new/additional facts (which I should/would probably verify independently), and I subsequently change my stance/opinion, I don't consider myself "shamed".

That said, maybe you have a better understanding of how the "upstarts" will respond. I no longer expect the "average" person to act logically...

Also, my statement was solely based on the linked snip-it. It is entirely possible that the actual ads will take a shaming tack.

“We’ll be launching a multimillion-dollar digital campaign that talks about what’s at stake and how a vote for a third-party candidate is a vote for Donald Trump, who is against everything these voters stand for,” said Justin Barasky, a strategist for Priorities USA.

We are at an impasse.

There's a difference between "vote for me and all my great ideas" vs. "don't vote for Jill because Trump is a monster".

Moliere wrote:There's a difference between "vote for me and all my great ideas" vs. "don't vote for Jill because Trump is a monster".

There is, but it's not automatically shaming.

LM, how would you inform someone that their current actions will result in negative consequences in such a way that it could not be seen as "shaming"?

I can't think of much. Something like "these actions have these consequences" and then just walk away? I mean, the goal is to inform the person of consequences that they may not have been aware of, and hoping this knowledge gets them to change their actions.

I can't think of any way that this could not be viewed, from a certain perspective, as "shaming". Even if the person informing them was a disinterested 3rd party.

So if you insist on seeing this as shaming (and that's not an unreasonable view, it's just not the only view) then you've left Clinton's camp no way to get that message out. I'm not sure that's reasonable.

Compare "A vote for third-party Jones helps my major-party opponent" and "A vote for my major-party opponent brings war/recession/chaos."

Why is the first "shaming" while the second is just normal politics? Both are about the consequences of voting a certain way.

GreenGoo wrote:LM, how would you inform someone that their current actions will result in negative consequences in such a way that it could not be seen as "shaming"?

I can't think of much. Something like "these actions have these consequences" and then just walk away? I mean, the goal is to inform the person of consequences that they may not have been aware of, and hoping this knowledge gets them to change their actions.

I don't have the answers you are looking for. I'm also not sure you'd be having the same conversation as third party voters. Leading with inform will be leading with something adversarial. They will respond by informing you.

Holman wrote:Compare "A vote for third-party Jones helps my major-party opponent" and "A vote for my major-party opponent brings war/recession/chaos."

Why is the first "shaming" while the second is just normal politics? Both are about the consequences of voting a certain way.

I'm not sure there is a difference, other than maybe somehow related to the level of control each claimant has. And then question is what are you trying to shame the other about. Are we not trying to shame bigots into changing their ways or least use a sort of humiliation to get them to retreat into the dominant paradigm?

If your vote will help elect Trump, you should be ashamed.

That's not necessarily the argument Hillary's campaign will make. Hillary is the political equivalent of Rodney Dangerfield -- can't get no respect.

The only vote that helps elect Trump is a vote for Trump. A vote for Johnson helps elect Johnson - no more, no less.

Not true in a first-past-the-post system.

Isgrimnur wrote:Not true in a first-past-the-post system.

Please explain.

stessier wrote:The only vote that helps elect Trump is a vote for Trump. A vote for Johnson helps elect Johnson - no more, no less.

Given that the probability of Johnson being elected with or without your vote is 0.00%, I guess that's more of an ironic "help" than actual help.

Most votes wins. A vote assumed for Hillary taken from her and moved to Trump would be a 2-vote swing in Trump's favor. A vote taken from her and moved to a 3rd party results in a 1-vote swing to Trump's favor.