Trump Regime thread.

[Favre4Ever+ 4,476]

 

It's almost as if the president doesn't actually run the country.

 

Imagine that.

Some people in this thread would call that a conspiracy and call you crazy for saying such a thing.

[Sarge+ 3,436]

This has been politics for a long time. Trump is a scumbag. There's no doubt about that but is his pettiness new to Washington? Hardly.

 

The point is people voted for Trump because they thought he would change that. They were totally, 100% wrong. Luckily, at least some are starting to admit it.

[blotsfan 2,112]

Some people in this thread would call that a conspiracy and call you crazy for saying such a thing.

For saying the president doesn't have singular control over everything that happens? I'm like 99% sure we went over that in 4th grade social studies.

[blotsfan 2,112]

Life comes at you fast.

 

https://twitter.com/samsteinhp/status/840207106737340420

[blotsfan 2,112]

People voted for Donald Trump.

 

https://twitter.com/kylegriffin1/status/840277640896471040

[Vin+ 3,121]

 

 

http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/3/8/14848636/hillary-clinton-tv-ads

 

Hillary Clinton’s campaign ran TV ads that had less to do with policy than any other presidential candidate in the past four presidential races, according to a new study published on Monday by the Wesleyan Media Project.

 

Clinton’s team spent a whopping $1 billion on the election in all — about twice what Donald Trump’s campaign spent. Clinton spent $72 million on television ads in the final weeks alone.

 

But only 25 percent of advertising supporting her campaign went after Trump on policy grounds, the researchers found. By comparison, every other presidential candidate going back to at least 2000 devoted more than 40 percent of his or her advertising to policy-based attacks. None spent nearly as much time going after an opponent’s personality as Clinton’s ads did.

 

Trump, who didn’t exactly run as a wonk, aired a more typical number of policy-focused ads compared with past elections. As an example, the study notes his first big TV buy was for an ad called “Two Americas” — one that portrayed life under Clinton’s immigration policies and one under Trump’s. The Clinton world is pretty bleak. Trump’s is rosy. In all, Factcheck.org gave it a so-so review, saying the claims were based on “murky evidence and misrepresentations.”

 

Beyond overall ad spending, the study also breaks down the content of the attack ads aired on behalf of each candidate. It says about 70 percent of Trump’s ads “contained at least some discussion of policy.” About 90 percent of Clinton’s attack ads went after Trump as an individual — compared with just 10 percent that went after his policies, the study found.

 

The study concludes that Clinton’s strategy may have backfired badly. Here’s what they have to say:

Evidence suggests that negativity in advertising can have a backlash effect on the sponsor (Pinkleton 1997) and that personally-focused, trait-based negative messages (especially those that are uncivil) tend to be seen as less fair, less informative and less important than more substantive, policy-based messaging (Fridkin and Geer 1994; Brooks and Geer 2007).

 

In stark contrast to any prior presidential cycle for which we have Kantar Media/CMAG data, the Clinton campaign overwhelmingly chose to focus on Trump’s personality and fitness for office (in a sense, doubling down on the news media’s focus), leaving very little room for discussion in advertising of the reasons why Clinton herself was the better choice.

 

Trump, on the other hand, provided explicit policy-based contrasts, highlighting his strengths and Clinton’s weaknesses, a strategy that research suggests voters find helpful in decision-making. These strategic differences may have meant that Clinton was more prone to voter backlash and did nothing to overcome the media’s lack of focus on Clinton’s policy knowledge, especially for residents of Michigan and Wisconsin, in particular, who were receiving policy-based (and specifically economically-focused) messaging from Trump.

 

 

Of course, as Vox’s Tara Golshan has pointed out, Clinton’s team likely pursued this line against Trump because they thought it was working — most of the polling suggested Clinton was going to win on Election Day.

 

But the new report also confirms what multiple outlets have already reported: that the Clinton campaign did not appear to realize its vulnerability in the Rust Belt until the final days of the election and, as a result, blew millions that could have been spent elsewhere. Clinton’s team spent virtually nothing advertising in Wisconsin, Michigan, or Pennsylvania until the final week — when they then decided to exponentially increase their resources there.

 

The Wesleyan researchers write, with some understatement:

t may very well be that Clinton misallocated advertising funds (both hyper-targeting on local cable and advertising in non-traditional battlegrounds like Arizona rather than in the Midwest, for example) and a lack of policy messaging in advertising may have hurt Clinton enough to have made a difference.

 

 

The blown money on TV advertising in Arizona was exacerbated by a ground strategy that local Rust Belt Democrats have heavily criticized. As Sen. Gary Peters (D-MI) told Vox in December 2016, the Clinton campaign appeared to do little to relate to Midwest union workers in the runup to the vote:

 

As far as I know, she didn’t stop at any UAW halls. I probably would have been invited to be with her if she was going to one, and I never got that invitation. She didn't do any labor-specific events that I'm aware of. It's pretty rare that you aren't working closely with labor in a campaign, especially for statewide office. I'm sitting right here now, talking to you in the parking lot of the sheet metal workers before their holiday party. I'm going to be with my friends, with the sheet metal workers, to convey that they are important to me by showing up at their events. Labor simply cannot be taken for granted in Michigan. Not doing that sort of event certainly was a major oversight.

 

 

The new study was conducted by Erika Fowler, a Wesleyan government professor; Travid Ridout, a philosophy and public affairs professor at Washington State University; and Michael Franz, a government and legal studies professor at Bowdoin College. You can read it in full here.

 

 

 

Graphs and whatnot in the link.

Edited March 11, 2017 by Vin

[blotsfan 2,112]

Yeah they assumed once people saw how undeniably awful trump is, they'd not want him to be president. Unfortunately it turns out america is a pretty awful country.

[RazorStar 4,025]

Or it turns out that telling people not to touch a burning stove just makes them want to touch it more.

[Favre4Ever+ 4,476]

There was also a study that gender swapped that the two candidates... They took two actors, studied the mannerisms and speech of Clinton and Trump and reenacted the debates in front of a live audience.

 

They loved female Trump... Even when she said things that male Trump got attacked for, people loved it when female Trump said it.

 

Just kind of support what we already knew.. Trump's message was a lot better. Simple, easy to grasp.. And it sounds like the left really hates men,... Because they loved Trump when he had a vagina.

 

https://pjmedia.com/trending/2017/03/08/trumpclinton-debate-with-genders-swapped-shocks-hillary-voters/

 

https://www.nyu.edu/about/news-publications/news/2017/march/trump-clinton-debates-gender-reversal.html

[BJORN 679]

Not gonna bother reading but the left votes for people based on their physical characteristics? NO WAY

Edited March 11, 2017 by BJORN

[Favre4Ever+ 4,476]

Not gonna bother reading but the left votes for people based on their physical characteristics? NO WAY

 

Not much of a reason to read, I summed it up for the most part. I just know some people like having the sources.

[blotsfan 2,112]

Not gonna bother reading but the left votes for people based on their physical characteristics? NO WAY

 

The next Republican final presidential candidate who isn't a white man will be the first.

 

 

There was also a study that gender swapped that the two candidates... They took two actors, studied the mannerisms and speech of Clinton and Trump and reenacted the debates in front of a live audience.

 

They loved female Trump... Even when she said things that male Trump got attacked for, people loved it when female Trump said it.

 

Just kind of support what we already knew.. Trump's message was a lot better. Simple, easy to grasp.. And it sounds like the left really hates men,... Because they loved Trump when he had a vagina.

 

https://pjmedia.com/trending/2017/03/08/trumpclinton-debate-with-genders-swapped-shocks-hillary-voters/

 

https://www.nyu.edu/about/news-publications/news/2017/march/trump-clinton-debates-gender-reversal.html

 

Trump's message comes across better because its a wonderful message before you put thought into it. "I'm a genius who will fix all the problems in the world." Ok great...but thats not really possible.

Edited March 11, 2017 by blotsfan

[Vin+ 3,121]

Republicans'll be lucky to ever get a President again if Trump bombs.

 

But then I pretty much said the same thing a couple years ago when things weren't lookin good for the Republicans and yet here we are.

[Favre4Ever+ 4,476]

 

The next Republican final presidential candidate who isn't a white man will be the first.

 

 

 

Trump's message comes across better because its a wonderful message before you put thought into it. "I'm a genius who will fix all the problems in the world." Ok great...but thats not really possible.

 

It's a good message and even better in comparison to Hillary's which was.... pretty non-existent. We've talked about it a lot before so I don't want to get into it too much but... Her message was literally character assassination. Trump will dig his own grave, Hillary didn't need to try helping -- because what she ended up doing was just filling in the hole.

[blotsfan 2,112]

I'm not gonna say Hillary ran a good campaign. I'm just saying if the country wasn't stupid/shitty that wouldn't have mattered.

[Cherry 1,302]

Damn, for a country that is based around the ideas of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, we sure suck quite a bit. Shame that a country with such a high standard of living and equality is so awful. Not like we just legalized gay marriage just a little bit ago, right?

[blotsfan 2,112]

Damn, for a country that is based around the ideas of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, we sure suck quite a bit. Shame that a country with such a high standard of living and equality is so awful. Not like we just legalized gay marriage just a little bit ago, right?

 

Legalizing gay marriage was great, but that doesn't change that we elected someone to Vice President that believes in gay conversion therapy. The party that was elected to control the country had to be dragged into "accepting" gay marriage kicking and screaming. It is still legal to fire someone for being gay. Transgender people are treated like second class citizens, and the person elected to be president wants to maintain that. Black people are treated like second class citizens and the person elected president wants to change that.

 

As far as quality of life goes, yeah we're not a third world country, but compared to other western countries? Not so good. How good can your quality of life be if you're one illness away from being bankrupt?

[Thanatos 2,847]

Kellyanne just seriously suggested that Obama may have been spying on Trump through his microwave. She was trying to defend his "wiretapping" claim that has absolutely jack shit for evidence by claiming that maybe he was spying on him, just not through tapping his lines- since the WH has put forward no evidence for Trump's idiotic claims in this category.

Edited March 13, 2017 by Thanatos

[blotsfan 2,112]

The (non-partisan) CBO estimates that about 24 million people will lose their health insurance under Trumpcare. There are also about 600 billion dollars going in tax cuts to the 1%.

 

So that seems like a good plan.

[Favre4Ever+ 4,476]

The (non-partisan) CBO estimates that about 24 million people will lose their health insurance under Trumpcare. There are also about 600 billion dollars going in tax cuts to the 1%.

 

So that seems like a good plan.

 

For the record.. I don't like "TrumpCare" or whatever you want to call it.

 

But this number is vastly over-inflated because TrumpCare gets rid of the government requirement to buy it and the penalty that goes a long with it.

 

The government shouldn't be able to mandate that I buy health insurance from them. That's insanity.

 

Trump adds his own mechanism in there later on I believe, which is also.. equally stupid.

Edited March 13, 2017 by Favre4Ever

[blotsfan 2,112]

I'm going back and forth between the two names. On the one hand, I want trumps name associated with this, on the other hand I'm sure he had literally nothing to do with this bill's composition.

 

Anywhom, I'm sure some of the people are those that don't want it and are just trying to avoid the penalties, but premiums are gonna skyrocket. I'm betting more often than not they're just being priced out.

[Favre4Ever+ 4,476]

I'm going back and forth between the two names. On the one hand, I want trumps name associated with this, on the other hand I'm sure he had literally nothing to do with this bill's composition.

 

Anywhom, I'm sure some of the people are those that don't want it and are just trying to avoid the penalties, but premiums are gonna skyrocket. I'm betting more often than not they're just being priced out.

Not doubting some of that is going on. A lot of people are used to that. Just gonna keep continuing, at least for a few years. CBO said premiums will begin to drop after 2019 because of lower enrollment.

 

And also in fairness, that's why premiums are going to go up. The individual mandate is going to be gone, so fewer people will enroll, so companies need to make up for the losses by charging the people who are getting it more. Their intention is to suck as much money out of people as possible, not give people health insurance -- which is a shame.

 

Needs to go back to the drawing board. I don't even know how your typical Republican could vote for this. Obviously you have the outcasts who are slightly more moderate who won't... but it's pretty appalling on most fronts.

[blotsfan 2,112]

Not doubting some of that is going on. A lot of people are used to that. Just gonna keep continuing, at least for a few years. CBO said premiums will begin to drop after 2019 because of lower enrollment.

 

And also in fairness, that's why premiums are going to go up. The individual mandate is going to be gone, so fewer people will enroll, so companies need to make up for the losses by charging the people who are getting it more. Their intention is to suck as much money out of people as possible, not give people health insurance -- which is a shame.

 

Needs to go back to the drawing board. I don't even know how your typical Republican could vote for this. Obviously you have the outcasts who are slightly more moderate who won't... but it's pretty appalling on most fronts.

 

I have an idea! Its called "single payer" healthcare. Everyone pays into it, everyone gets health insurance. Its kinda sorta what every other western country does.

[Cherry 1,302]

I have an idea! Its called "single payer" healthcare. Everyone pays into it, everyone gets health insurance. Its kinda sorta what every other western country does.

 

 

Thanks, but no thanks. I don't want to pay for your shitty single payer system that raises the cost of living and the cost of healthcare in general. The state is not nearly effective as the market in administering effective healthcare. The only reason to have a government fund which allocates for healthcare costs are for those under the age of 18 who aren't able to help themselves. Adults can decide whether or not they want to purchase healthcare.

[blotsfan 2,112]

I guess I want to prevent millions of people from dying due to treatable conditions just because they don't have enough money.