Thread Rating:

Poll

57 votes (47.89%)
33 votes (27.73%)
12 votes (10.08%)
10 votes (8.4%)
4 votes (3.36%)
3 votes (2.52%)

119 members have voted

MathExtremist
MathExtremist
Joined: Aug 31, 2010
  • Threads: 88
  • Posts: 6526
August 4th, 2016 at 2:53:46 PM permalink
Quote: beerseason

Then that is a terrible speech delivery, I would argue then speech writer should have put are not instead of aren't at a key point in the speech. I was merely pointing out that everyone makes mistakes, Freudian slip or terrible enunciation.

And a good ad team could work that very well into a highly effective ad whether they choose to or not is a different story. I would argue that combining quotes from several different areas of supposed weakness however out of context they are. Would in fact reinforce each idea if they otherwise stood alone.

Nobody ever accused Hillary Clinton of being a brilliant orator. Compared to Obama, who can not only speak with excellent rhetorical cadence but can even sing (he's a bit pitchy, but still), Hillary's diction is somewhat halting and stilted and I can't imagine her carrying a tune at all. She even admitted this on Rosie O'Donnell a bazillion years ago: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z7BNMrybHO4

So yes, I agree that the speechwriter messed up. I went to elementary school with a kid who cut off the "T" in words like "lot" and it came out like "lah" (that is, he used a glottal stop instead of pronouncing the final T phoneme). If they know Hillary does the same thing, they should have written it differently. In context, it's pretty obvious what she meant.

If the Trump camp spends their money on an attack ad that is based on a phonetic quirk rather than a Freudian slip-up, I think, that'd be a bad move.
"In my own case, when it seemed to me after a long illness that death was close at hand, I found no little solace in playing constantly at dice." -- Girolamo Cardano, 1563
rxwine
rxwine
Joined: Feb 28, 2010
  • Threads: 171
  • Posts: 10306
August 4th, 2016 at 2:56:27 PM permalink
In case anyone was wondering about the power of an American President. (I'd be happy if someone can find a refutation though)

Quote:

In 2008, then–Vice President Dick Cheney said something pretty chilling about nuclear weapons during a Fox News appearance. According to Cheney, the president is always accompanied by a military aide carrying a briefcase, called the "nuclear football," which allows the president to launch nuclear weapons. The president can launch at whomever, whenever:

Quote:
"He could launch a kind of devastating attack the world's never seen. He doesn't have to check with anybody. He doesn't have to call the Congress. He doesn't have to check with the courts. He has that authority because of the nature of the world we live in."

This may sound like Cheneyian hyperbole. But Ron Rosenbaum, a journalist who wrote a book about America’s nuclear weapons, looked into Cheney’s claims as part of a 2011 Slate piece. He concluded that they were basically accurate.

"No one could come up with a definitive constitutional refutation of this," Rosenbaum writes. "Any president could, on his own, leave a room, and in 25 minutes, 70 million (or more than that) would be dead."

Now, there’s a slight wrinkle: The secretary of defense is required to verify the president’s order to launch. But he or she doesn’t have veto power. If the president orders a nuclear launch, the secretary is legally obligated to do it. He or she could theoretically choose to resign rather than carry out the order, but then it would fall to the secretary’s second-in-command to order the strike.



http://www.vox.com/2016/8/3/12367996/donald-trump-nuclear-codes
Quasimodo? Does that name ring a bell?
beerseason
beerseason
Joined: Aug 14, 2013
  • Threads: 4
  • Posts: 161
August 4th, 2016 at 3:30:01 PM permalink
Quote: MathExtremist

. If they know Hillary does the same thing, they should have written it differently. In context, it's pretty obvious what she meant.

If the Trump camp spends their money on an attack ad that is based on a phonetic quirk rather than a Freudian slip-up, I think, that'd be a bad move.



Excellent points I would very much agree with every thing you said. And I agree it's obvious what she meant. I was just commenting that both sides are capable of gaffes.

On the ad, let's just agree to disagree.
Cayman012
Cayman012
Joined: Aug 5, 2016
  • Threads: 0
  • Posts: 6
August 5th, 2016 at 10:56:54 AM permalink
Y'all crazy! All 4 presidents (who are alive), 2 republicans and 2 democrats are against Trump. I think that they know how to be a president and that a human like Donald is not acceptable.
steeldco
steeldco
Joined: Nov 30, 2011
  • Threads: 52
  • Posts: 4914
August 5th, 2016 at 11:28:06 AM permalink
Quote: Cayman012

Y'all crazy! All 4 presidents (who are alive), 2 republicans and 2 democrats are against Trump. I think that they know how to be a president and that a human like Donald is not acceptable.



This is not quite the metric that I would use. All 4 of them are biased for obvious reasons. They can't be counted on for an honest appraisal.

Having said that, both Trump and Clinton suck. Both are bad choices. Heaven help us all.
DO NOT blindly accept what has been spoken. DO NOT blindly accept what has been written. Think. Assess. Lead. DO NOT blindly follow.
SAMIAM
SAMIAM
Joined: Aug 4, 2016
  • Threads: 0
  • Posts: 43
August 5th, 2016 at 11:37:45 AM permalink
I have always been math challenged, but Hillary and Trumps the best either party could dig up, in a country of 318.9 million ?
What are the odds on that ?
777
777
Joined: Oct 7, 2015
  • Threads: 30
  • Posts: 724
August 5th, 2016 at 11:55:42 AM permalink
Bo knows baseball, Trump knows Chapter 11.

For entity with small infrastructure and small number of affected people, “burning down the forest” to start over can provide quick solution. This “burning down the forest” approach is tantamount to the Chapter 11 reorganization and is only carried out as the last resort.

But for entity where a large population and huge infrastructures are involved, for instant the USA with a population about 320M people over a huge land mass with lots of infrastructures, your desired solution of “burning down the forest” is impractical, and if carried out, will make matters much worse.

Yes, there are big & serious problems within the government, but we shouldn’t throw the baby out with the bathwater by burning down the forest. Using your cancer analogy, your solution will not only kill the cancerous cells, but it also kills the healthy organs. It is my observation that the unprecedented obstructions and the “my way or the highway” attitude carried out primarily by the GOP of the past 8 years did not result in meaningful change and made the cancer tumor bigger & more deadly.

If it takes us 32 years to build up this huge national debt, and other social/political problems, then don’t expect these problems can be solved in one election cycle. Change must be made, but it must be done gradually to avoid disastrous social disorder, and it requires sacrifice, compromise and cooperation from all citizens and their representatives.

The rise in popularity of Trump and Sander could serve as a catalyst for many changes in within the GOP and DEM. It is a good start, but for any changes to materialize or to evolve into some compromised forms, it requires sacrifice, compromise and cooperation from all citizens and their representatives.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/06/us/politics/as-trump-rises-reformocons-see-chance-to-update-gops-economic-views.html?_r=0

Trump, with his inexperience & lack of knowledge, his divisiveness, bad temper, authoritarian/dictatorial, my way or the highway, and childish behaviors are not suitable to be an agent of change where compromise and cooperation are absolutely necessary in a democracy. My fear is Trump will “burn down the forest” and nuke the world if given the power, and it is not the risk our nation should take.

Hillary on the other hand, despite her imperfection, has experience, knowledge and political skills, will be a good agent of change. But Hillary cannot do it alone, she needs sacrifice, compromise and cooperation from all of us.

Let’s give Hillary a chance.
steeldco
steeldco
Joined: Nov 30, 2011
  • Threads: 52
  • Posts: 4914
August 5th, 2016 at 11:59:53 AM permalink
Neither of them deserve a chance. Trump is unstable and Hillary is a dumbass liar who probably doesn't even know what a computer is.
DO NOT blindly accept what has been spoken. DO NOT blindly accept what has been written. Think. Assess. Lead. DO NOT blindly follow.
MathExtremist
MathExtremist
Joined: Aug 31, 2010
  • Threads: 88
  • Posts: 6526
August 5th, 2016 at 12:02:28 PM permalink
Quote: 777

Hillary on the other hand, despite her imperfection, has experience, knowledge and political skills, will be a good agent of change. But Hillary cannot do it alone, she needs sacrifice, compromise and cooperation from all of us.

Let’s give Hillary a chance.

Agreed. I'm not optimistic that the obstructionist Congress will cooperate or compromise, at least not unless it changes hands in the coming election cycle.

Merrick Garland is sitting on a record 142 days without a confirmation vote and counting...
"In my own case, when it seemed to me after a long illness that death was close at hand, I found no little solace in playing constantly at dice." -- Girolamo Cardano, 1563
steeldco
steeldco
Joined: Nov 30, 2011
  • Threads: 52
  • Posts: 4914
August 5th, 2016 at 12:02:33 PM permalink
Quote: steeldco

Neither of them deserve a chance. Trump is unstable and Hillary is a dumbass liar who probably doesn't even know what a computer is.



As a matter of fact, I would rather start a write in campaign for Bozo. A dead clown would make for a far better candidate than either one of those two.
DO NOT blindly accept what has been spoken. DO NOT blindly accept what has been written. Think. Assess. Lead. DO NOT blindly follow.

  • Jump to: