Octopus Overlords

Same here. Gallup just released a poll that the media is now regarded as untrustworthy as it has ever been. So if we dont trust the referees then that unleashes the candidates to lie and lie big. Which is what we are seeing.

On top of that we have a populace that is angry and improbably and suddenly not afraid to be nearly openly racist again. The coding has gotten thinner and thinner. So much so that Trump has appropriated White Supremecist memes into his tweets with nary a mention. It is hard to argue we aren't in the midst of calamity whether he wins or not.

Rip wrote:Then the new Wikileaks will drop and the real panic can begin.

I'm thinking of moving to Hollywood and just taking over one of the abandoned mansions.

I'm sure I'll kick myself for asking, but what does that even mean, Rip?

Kurth wrote:

Rip wrote:Then the new Wikileaks will drop and the real panic can begin.

I'm thinking of moving to Hollywood and just taking over one of the abandoned mansions.

I'm sure I'll kick myself for asking, but what does that even mean, Rip?

This sort of thing, presumably.

Isn't the nightmare scenario with the debates that the expectations are so low that if he shows up, doesn't say a word, and avoids setting the podium on fire, the story will be that he had a solid showing? He doesn't have to beat Hillary (because he can't if they're both actually debating), he just has to be more controlled than he has been, which is an incredibly low bar.

Meanwhile, Hillary's playing the role of an adult arguing with a child who the rules don't apply to. If he lies and she calls him on it, he'll just repeat himself but louder, and how do you reasonably respond to that?

Hillary has to get smart and use Trump's weaknesses against him in a stunt. Make Trump ACT insecure and belligerent, and land a solid blow that deflates the Trump image. Something along the lines of Chris Christie calling out Marco Rubio for being an unprepared puppet.

My preference is that Hillary calls him a chicken over refusing to release his tax returns, then makes a joke about Trump's performance (ie, hands and penis), and shuts down his overreaction by pointing out that if he can't take the heat he should get out of the kitchen. Any one of those moments in a confrontation would get airtime and dominate the narrative for weeks.

Kurth wrote:

Rip wrote:Then the new Wikileaks will drop and the real panic can begin.

I'm thinking of moving to Hollywood and just taking over one of the abandoned mansions.

I'm sure I'll kick myself for asking, but what does that even mean, Rip?

That half of Hollywood has said they are leaving the country if Trump wins. Should be a housing boom.

Rip wrote:
That half of Hollywood has said they are leaving the country if Trump wins. Should be a housing boom.

You could always hole up somewhere and wait for Helter Skelter to start.

Now his African-Americans are getting downright uppity.

I'm sure Mr. Duke can show him a thing or two about keeping them in their place.

Rip wrote:

Kurth wrote:

Rip wrote:Then the new Wikileaks will drop and the real panic can begin.

I'm thinking of moving to Hollywood and just taking over one of the abandoned mansions.

I'm sure I'll kick myself for asking, but what does that even mean, Rip?

Why would they abandon their property? Is Drumpf going to eminent domain everything? Why would he give you a mansion?

Zarathud wrote:My preference is that Hillary calls him a chicken over refusing to release his tax returns, then makes a joke about Trump's performance (ie, hands and penis), and shuts down his overreaction by pointing out that if he can't take the heat he should get out of the kitchen. Any one of those moments in a confrontation would get airtime and dominate the narrative for weeks.

The problem is that Hillary can likely handle herself around other politicians and I have no doubt she'd be able to do so during a political debate. However, she's not debating a politician - she's debating an entertainer and his drunken Kung-Fu style is completely unorthodox to what she is accustomed to dealing with. I hope her handlers have been studying Trump and giving her guidance, but I just don't know how you can expect a lifetime politician to hold their own against him when he's made it this far doing what he does. She's not going to out-joke him or shred him with a witty comment; he's immune or his giant ego prevents him from feeling anything remotely close to shame. No one expects him to win - he's in the perfect position. All he needs to do is get her flustered or come up with a insult that sticks and it's over. I honestly don't know what she could do or say to "win" the debate in any meaningful sense.

Trump operates in a carefully protected bubble before a predictable audience. Hillary is the only one who will pop the bubble and ruin the illusion -- and the debates are her only chance.

Smoove_B wrote: All he needs to do is get her flustered

Oddly enough, I'd see her getting noticeably flustered at his bluster being one of the few things that could generate votes for her from the people who don't want to vote for her. It actually gains her some sort of empathy from the demographic of not Trump voting block who aren't currently likely to vote for her either, of which I'd estimate she has currently none. She would give the voters at least an illusion or the feeling that she is someone they could blow steam off with against the brick wall they are up against.

Kurth wrote:

Rip wrote:Then the new Wikileaks will drop and the real panic can begin.

I'm thinking of moving to Hollywood and just taking over one of the abandoned mansions.

I'm sure I'll kick myself for asking, but what does that even mean, Rip?

I thought he was talking about Florida and all the mansions abandoned due to rising sea levels.

Chaz wrote:Isn't the nightmare scenario with the debates that the expectations are so low that if he shows up, doesn't say a word, and avoids setting the podium on fire, the story will be that he had a solid showing? He doesn't have to beat Hillary (because he can't if they're both actually debating), he just has to be more controlled than he has been, which is an incredibly low bar.

Meanwhile, Hillary's playing the role of an adult arguing with a child who the rules don't apply to. If he lies and she calls him on it, he'll just repeat himself but louder, and how do you reasonably respond to that?

Yes, that's the worry. The upshot of the tightening polls is that at least now the media won't be primed to write the "here comes the Trump comeback!" stories that would otherwise have been written.

Zarathud wrote:Trump operates in a carefully protected bubble before a predictable audience. Hillary is the only one who will pop the bubble and ruin the illusion -- and the debates are her only chance.

I think what she needs to do is come with a list of the most succinct and egregious Trump quotes. It's not enough for her to accuse Trump of being horrendous in many ways, because she won't have any credibility on it. She needs to be ready to hang Trump in his own words.

tgb wrote:Now his African-Americans are getting downright uppity.

I'm sure Mr. Duke can show him a thing or two about keeping them in their place.

I loved watching that. Wish there was more.

It should come as no surprise to anyone alive, but it turns out his daughter also lies through her teeth.

El Guapo wrote:

Zarathud wrote:Trump operates in a carefully protected bubble before a predictable audience. Hillary is the only one who will pop the bubble and ruin the illusion -- and the debates are her only chance.

I think what she needs to do is come with a list of the most succinct and egregious Trump quotes. It's not enough for her to accuse Trump of being horrendous in many ways, because she won't have any credibility on it. She needs to be ready to hang Trump in his own words.

The audience that watches debates for substance is a fraction of those who watch for entertainment. Trump is an entertainer. Clinton most definitely is not. She can win on points and still lose when the subtext is "Who do I want to see on my TV for the next four years?". Or to put it another way...everyone who cares about substance is already in the Clinton camp.

Democrats who feel smug about the debates making everything better are in for a rude awakening.

Kraken wrote:Democrats who feel smug about the debates making everything better are in for a rude awakening.

My fear with the debates is Hillary having an Al Gore "lockbox" moment. She'll be up there dryly going over detailed policies and statistics, and the audience will be snoozing. Then Trump pulls a George W, and becomes the crazy uncle getting the laughs and it'll be over. The guy knows how to work a camera.

I think they should get whoever does Hillary's ads and tweet responses to be her debate coach. Because she absolutely skewers him on social media.

YellowKing wrote:

Kraken wrote:Democrats who feel smug about the debates making everything better are in for a rude awakening.

My fear with the debates is Hillary having an Al Gore "lockbox" moment. She'll be up there dryly going over detailed policies and statistics, and the audience will be snoozing. Then Trump pulls a George W, and becomes the crazy uncle getting the laughs and it'll be over. The guy knows how to work a camera.

Agreed. Debates are "won" on the quips that everyone repeats the next day, and Hillary's out of her league on that level. (edit) Although the "basket of deplorables" comment gave me hope until she started to back away from it.

I don't know enough about this "social media" that you speak of to render an opinion on that part...but whoever writes Clinton's tweets won't be on the stage.

Kraken wrote:I don't know enough about this "social media" that you speak of to render an opinion on that part...but whoever writes Clinton's tweets won't be on the stage.

Look for an earpiece.

El Guapo wrote:

Zarathud wrote:Trump operates in a carefully protected bubble before a predictable audience. Hillary is the only one who will pop the bubble and ruin the illusion -- and the debates are her only chance.

I think what she needs to do is come with a list of the most succinct and egregious Trump quotes. It's not enough for her to accuse Trump of being horrendous in many ways, because she won't have any credibility on it. She needs to be ready to hang Trump in his own words.

She already runs a bazillion ads of them. She will need something new.

Kraken wrote:

YellowKing wrote:

Kraken wrote:Democrats who feel smug about the debates making everything better are in for a rude awakening.

My fear with the debates is Hillary having an Al Gore "lockbox" moment. She'll be up there dryly going over detailed policies and statistics, and the audience will be snoozing. Then Trump pulls a George W, and becomes the crazy uncle getting the laughs and it'll be over. The guy knows how to work a camera.

Agreed. Debates are "won" on the quips that everyone repeats the next day, and Hillary's out of her league on that level. (edit) Although the "basket of deplorables" comment gave me hope until she started to back away from it.

I don't know enough about this "social media" that you speak of to render an opinion on that part...but whoever writes Clinton's tweets won't be on the stage.

Not sure it is that effective when the Trump backers have embraced it and are wearing t-shirts with it.

Rip wrote:
Not sure it is that effective when the Trump backers have embraced it and are wearing t-shirts with it.

It's instructive that after she calls 50% of Trumpeters racist, misogynistic, homophobic knuckleheads, the response hasn't been "maybe some are, but not me", but instead "yeah, and proud of it!".

Looks more like 100% to me.

Rip wrote:
Not sure it is that effective when the Trump backers have embraced it and are wearing t-shirts with it.

Yeah. It's fantastic that they are owning that they are indeed racist, sexist and generally awful people.

This election is making me physically ill.

Rip wrote:

Kraken wrote:

YellowKing wrote:

Kraken wrote:Democrats who feel smug about the debates making everything better are in for a rude awakening.

My fear with the debates is Hillary having an Al Gore "lockbox" moment. She'll be up there dryly going over detailed policies and statistics, and the audience will be snoozing. Then Trump pulls a George W, and becomes the crazy uncle getting the laughs and it'll be over. The guy knows how to work a camera.

Agreed. Debates are "won" on the quips that everyone repeats the next day, and Hillary's out of her league on that level. (edit) Although the "basket of deplorables" comment gave me hope until she started to back away from it.

I don't know enough about this "social media" that you speak of to render an opinion on that part...but whoever writes Clinton's tweets won't be on the stage.

Not sure it is that effective when the Trump backers have embraced it and are wearing t-shirts with it.

Just one clip of a protestor being beaten up by a gang of shirt-wearing deplorables should do the trick. Coupled with a non-disavowal by Trump.

The protester beatings are already back. There were three assaults at Trump rallies this week, including one where a Trump supporter punched out an elderly woman wearing an oxygen mask.

Now here's the kicker that makes me absolutely love this woman. She's a 69 year old woman in apparently poor health (chronic obstructive pulmonary disease). She gets punched hard in the face, knocked down and bruised. She gets driven home by the police. But damn, Shirley pops right back up and she's on message. Here's the kicker at the end of the article.

After the interview, Teeter called News 13. She wanted to add one more thing, a question.
She asks if people find a Trump supporter punching her in the face deplorable.

Police have so far made five arrests during and after the rally, not including the man they plan to arrest for assaulting Teeter.

How do you think these people will take it when Drumpf fails to pay their legal bills? Or more likely, says he will pay them and then stiffs the attorneys?

tgb wrote: How do you think these people will take it when Drumpf fails to pay their legal bills? Or more likely, says he will pay them and then stiffs the attorneys?

They'll blame Hillary, of course.

Can we all at least agree that the only time a 69 year old woman wearing an air mask should be punched in the face is at 12am in a Wal-Mart on Black Friday?

Or if she's grabbing the last coffee crisp. Bitch gettin' laid out.

Smoove_B wrote:Can we all at least agree that the only time a 69 year old woman wearing an air mask should be punched in the face is at 12am in a Wal-Mart on Black Friday?

It's too early in the morning for a joke about German porn, so I'm willing to grant provisional agreement.

Kraken wrote:

YellowKing wrote:

Kraken wrote:Democrats who feel smug about the debates making everything better are in for a rude awakening.

My fear with the debates is Hillary having an Al Gore "lockbox" moment. She'll be up there dryly going over detailed policies and statistics, and the audience will be snoozing. Then Trump pulls a George W, and becomes the crazy uncle getting the laughs and it'll be over. The guy knows how to work a camera.

Agreed. Debates are "won" on the quips that everyone repeats the next day, and Hillary's out of her league on that level. (edit) Although the "basket of deplorables" comment gave me hope until she started to back away from it.

I don't know enough about this "social media" that you speak of to render an opinion on that part...but whoever writes Clinton's tweets won't be on the stage.

Thinking about this some more...the best possible result for Clinton is that Trump becomes unhinged on stage, and either comes after her in a crass / unpresidential way (e.g., insulting her appearance) or says crazy shit that gets reported on as "Trump's coming unhinged!" in the post-debate cycle.

Of course, that's not within Clinton's control. BUT connected to that, I feel like the best strategy might be to focus her digs on Trump around a "Trump is a fraud / con man" theme, including mocking Trump's business record. Not only does that get to the heart of Trump's message / appeal ("I'm a businessman who will make great deals to fix this country"), it also lets her bring up stuff like the tax returns issue, and by all accounts its the one attack that drives Trump crazy, so it's most likely to get Trump stuck in one of his self-destructive cycles.

El Guapo wrote:

Zarathud wrote:Trump operates in a carefully protected bubble before a predictable audience. Hillary is the only one who will pop the bubble and ruin the illusion -- and the debates are her only chance.

I think what she needs to do is come with a list of the most succinct and egregious Trump quotes. It's not enough for her to accuse Trump of being horrendous in many ways, because she won't have any credibility on it. She needs to be ready to hang Trump in his own words.

Like this?

Zaxxon wrote: Like this?

Brilliantly played. It's won't make the slightest difference, alas.

She needs a way to expose Trump's inexperience, and I'm not quite sure how she does it. He's a master at disguising his incompetence with either grandiose vague statements, bald-faced lies, or turning the question into an attack on his opponent.

The bully angle could certainly work. If she could get him to attack her or "get all up in her bidness" then she has a shot of controlling the narrative. Again I point to Bush/Gore, when Gore made the mistake of invading Bush's personal space and coming across as aggressive.

It's going to be tough. Clinton is not only fighting a negative reputation that goes back years, but also general sexism. She has to become a victim without becoming *too* much of a victim - remember how she was raked over the coals for shedding a tear during the 2008 campaign?

What will be funny is once Drumpf gets decimated, how fast Republicans will disavow themselves. Before the polls even close.

More than any past debates I can remember, I think the outcomes of these debates will be heavily influenced by the moderators. How much they let Trump get away with (both his aggressiveness and when he lies), will likely define who "wins". Fortunately, I think the moderators will probably be strict with Trump after Matt Lauer's evisceration in the press.

Jaymann wrote:What will be funny is once Drumpf gets decimated, how fast Republicans will disavow themselves. Before the polls even close.

That's wishful thinking. The Trump voters I have talked to don't care about facts. They only see Hillary as a lying criminal who should be in jail. And this is from moderate Republicans. The Alt Right ones want her dead. So when it comes to the debates the only people she will swing are the truly independent voters who don't watch Fox News or listen to Rush and his like.

Ralph-Wiggum wrote:More than any past debates I can remember, I think the outcomes of these debates will be heavily influenced by the moderators. How much they let Trump get away with (both his aggressiveness and when he lies), will likely define who "wins". Fortunately, I think the moderators will probably be strict with Trump after Matt Lauer's evisceration in the press.

Yeah I don't know Lester Holt super well, but my understanding is that he's a respectable journalist, and he won't want to be the next Lauer. So I expect he'll *probably* be good for at least one fact check on Trump.

But of course the trick for Clinton is that she can't count on that.