Post: #1076

Hillary is a terrible public speaker. Nothing about it is memorable.

The speech content, however, was perfectly crafted by some of the finest speech writers in the land. Her campaign is also pulling a Ted Cruz and lying their asses off by pretending Trump's issues are her issues. She ACTUALLY SAID she'll be tough on China! WTF? When did that EVER become an issue for her? She said she won't take away guns, she'll get ISIS, and she'll even be tough on Russia. Her viewpoints clearly were globalist in nature compared to Trump's.

To paraphrase her, she said "We're stronger with the world than without it," which makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. It's as if I can go anywhere in the world and will share their strength or whatever. But it sounds all good and touchy feely, which is what the goal is. The problem with this? Hillary COMPLETELY bombed the key moment of the speech when she delivered, "Love Trump's Hate." It actually sounded like she meant, "We should love Trump's hate," because she didn't stress the right words or syllables. Hilariously bad.

There was a shit ton of coverage of this speech, and I wouldn't be surprised if it got higher ratings than Trump's RNC speech. This is because more networks were hyping up this event as well as give glowing praise the entire time (compare the DNC to how Melania was treated). However, I think Trump's RNC got a lot more internet coverage, because I saw a lot more YouTube channels live streaming the RNC than I did the DNC. There was only 3-4 streams with over 1,000 that I saw, with the top stream getting 250K viewers at it's peak. More than Obama. On the other hand, the amount of channels streaming the RNC were at least 5 pages of RNC live streams.

I don't think this event will change the polls too much, but perhaps the media propaganda machine can work some incredible magic. It's pretty tough to polish this turd. The 2016 DNC was a major failure, pissing off the progressive wing, and delivering non-stop pandering speeches that all sounded exactly the same.

Hillary is not the main opponent for Trump this election. It is 100% the controlled media. They are going to be pumping bullshit into the airwaves everyday, every second, for the remainder of this election. Since most people are low-info voters, the media will do as much as possible not to show too much of the DNC. They will hide the riots, protests, and walkouts. They will portray Hillary as humane and caring. They will show a packed stadium of people acting united. The soundclips they will play back from this event have already been picked by the speech writers a day before Hillary even spoke. This is going to minimize all damage the DNC could have caused Hillary's campaign, with a possible increase in the polls in the weeks to come from the media smear campaign.

However, the one thing that is going to keep Trump in the lead will be the debates. Once people have a chance to size the candidates next to each other, and Trump is allowed to counter Hillary's lies (like he did with Cruz) the low-info voter will be able to put things into perspective and see that Trump really isn't the big scary guy the Dems say he is, but instead is 100x more likable than the shrill old-lady who cannot justify her actions. The debates will be the key component to breaking the media spell.

Post: #1077

Don't know if this was posted before, a fair and balanced article from The Atlantic for once, touching on what we talked about, how Hillary is going all in on the minority coalition and why the focus on white priviledge has backfired. Common knowledge for us, but this is the first I've read from MSM.

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/arch...ry/493097/

Quote:What Does Hillary Clinton Have to Offer Blue-Collar White Men?

After an analysis of polls gauging support for Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton, the New York Times concluded earlier this week that the Democratic nominee struggles most with one demographic group: working-class white men without college degrees. “Mr. Trump has adopted a message all but perfectly devised to attract these voters,” the article states. “He has a populist message on trade and immigration. He has abandoned key elements of the Republican agenda that hurt the party among white working-class Democrats, like support for cutting the social safety net.”

Gender may be a factor, the article adds, before addressing a final possible explanation:

It is also possible that less-educated white men are reacting to rapid changes in cultural and economic status, completely independent of Mrs. Clinton’s gender. No liberal arts college class on “power, privilege and hierarchy” will tell you that white working-class men have become a disadvantaged group. But many white working-class men do not feel privileged — not in a society where power and status are often vested in well-educated elites along the coasts. From their standpoint, the Democratic Party might look like an identity politics patronage system — affirmative action, immigration, “political correctness,” gender or whatever else.

This formulation understates the antagonism that these voters hear from the cultural left. Liberal-arts classes, numerous left-leaning media outlets, and many social-media progressives don’t merely fail to treat these voters as a disadvantaged class—they speak as if they are playing the entire game of life on the easiest setting, to borrow a characterization of whiteness that is prevalent on college campuses.

The framework of white privilege can be invoked with insight and subtlety, or with myopia and exaggeration; but either is a lot easier for white people to hear and to assimilate into their worldview if they’re college graduates who anticipate rewarding careers and stable family lives and mostly socialize with the similarly advantaged. They’re told that they ought to be thriving given their race … and they are thriving!

But imagine that you’re a white man from a working-class family who dropped out of college because you couldn’t swing the tuition. You worked construction, but that dried up—you’re presently unemployed, with child-support payments piling up, a sister addicted to pain pills, and a brother who is in jail again for felony drunk driving. You drive a beat up car with a broken turn signal that you can’t afford to fix. You get pulled over regularly, and you’re often harassed by the cops, who hate your tattoos. Would you identify with a coalition that alighted on white privilege as the center of its cultural outlook and that mostly disseminated that worldview through people with more educational, social, and financial capital than you’ll ever have?

Of course you wouldn’t. To do so would seem at odds with all the struggling white people in your familial and social circles. It would seem to imply that failing despite having all the advantages in the world makes you a special kind of loser. It would seem to focus on race to the exclusion of other hugely important factors. And as far as you can tell, when a white family gets their door kicked down and their dog shot in a drug raid, or when a white high school classmate of yours commits suicide, no one in the world of national media much cares.

Then you watch the DNC, where Michelle Obama, Cory Booker, Eva Longoria, and numerous other black and brown people who are much more successful than anyone you know take the stage. This needn’t feel threatening in and of itself to cause alienation. All it takes is being told that you’re the privileged one.

Given the family histories and life experiences of many black, Hispanic, and Asian American voters in the U.S., it’s totally understandable why a political coalition that emphasizes racial and ethnic identity as a source of struggle would resonate. It is understandable why Bernie Sanders’s laser focus on economics seemed inadequate.

And given the family histories and life experiences of many struggling white people without college degrees, it’s easy to see why a class explanation for what’s wrong with America would resonate far more in comparison. Little wonder that this latest incarnation of the Democratic Party has the most trouble with less educated whites, whether they’re right-leaning folks who prefer Donald Trump or Bernie-or-Bust folks.

Alongside the truth that no one single aspect of a person’s identity, whether class or race or a dozen factors besides, can be understood in isolation from all of the others, Democratic leaders this year correctly perceive that highlighting racial, ethnic, and gender diversity will win over a Rainbow coalition that includes college-educated whites.

But despite the relative care with which they execute this outreach, it is associated, in the minds of many working-class white voters, with the rhetorical excesses and substantive exaggerations of the college campus or the web of identity politics. And although Hillary Clinton and her surrogates have messages of uplift for black voters, for Latinos, for gays and lesbians, for the transgender community, and for undocumented immigrants—although they point to all manner of prejudice these groups have overcome and promise their members more progress—does she have any message of uplift for white men without college degrees? As yet, not any as resonant as what Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders offered.

If Hillary can find a way to speak to those voters without alienating her base of support among more highly educated whites, Hispanics, and African Americans, she will win. But prevailing trends on campus and in the media that treat race and gender as the important factors, rather than two important factors, will make her job extremely difficult.

Post: #1078

"...get money out of politics."
-Hillary Clinton

Post: #1079

(07-28-2016 10:21 PM)Liberty Sea Wrote:  At the end of the day people will barely remember anything from Hillary's speech.

Maybe that's the point? The less people remember about Clinton, the more likely they are to vote for her. Exposure leads to disgust in a normal person.

Post: #1080

What a ridiculous outfit she had on...it's like something a character in a dystopian movie (Hunger Games, etc.) would wear.

Post: #1081

(07-28-2016 11:39 PM)John Michael Kane Wrote:  

(07-28-2016 10:21 PM)Liberty Sea Wrote:  At the end of the day people will barely remember anything from Hillary's speech.

Maybe that's the point? The less people remember about Clinton, the more likely they are to vote for her. Exposure leads to disgust in a normal person.

I am not sure if "blahblahblah" is a winning speech. I believe they just like the smell of their own farts so much they wouldnt know what a real speech is.

Post: #1082

(07-28-2016 11:39 PM)John Michael Kane Wrote:  

(07-28-2016 10:21 PM)Liberty Sea Wrote:  At the end of the day people will barely remember anything from Hillary's speech.

Maybe that's the point? The less people remember about Clinton, the more likely they are to vote for her. Exposure leads to disgust in a normal person.

People won't remember what she talked about, but they will remember how she talked - with terrible voice, laugh, snark, lack of genuineness and conviction.

Post: #1083

(07-28-2016 11:45 PM)RexImperator Wrote:  What a ridiculous outfit she had on...it's like something a character in a dystopian movie (Hunger Games, etc.) would wear.

More like the Manchurian Candidate

Post: #1084

Found this Asian lady's anti-Clinton video clips while looking at some Clinton tweets



https://twitter.com/Taratballz/status/75...0010959872

https://twitter.com/Taratballz/status/75...6735973378

https://twitter.com/Taratballz/status/75...7120031744

Post: #1085

No post-speech poll? Even CNN displayed the magnificent bump Trump made immediately after his speech among viewers.

She's getting glowing coverage on the biggest news sites.

Post: #1086

(07-29-2016 12:15 AM)DarianFrey Wrote:  No post-speech poll? Even CNN displayed the magnificent bump Trump made immediately after his speech among viewers.

She's getting glowing coverage on the biggest news sites.

They had one, the exact same as after Trump gave his speech. It showed her outperforming him. How that's possible and how legitimate is is, I don't know. The bits and pieces of it I saw were god awful

Post: #1087

Some incredible race baiting nonsense, it's shameful. Where does this idea of Trump even originate?

Quote:Kareem Abdul-Jabbar took the stage at the Democratic National Convention in Philadelphia, where he took a jab at Republican nominee Donald Trump.

“Hello everyone. I’m Michael Jordan, and I’m here with Hillary,” Abdul-Jabbar said. “I said that because I know that Donald Trump couldn’t tell the difference.”

Post: #1088

Post: #1089

Christ, look at her stupid retard face.

Post: #1090

Who the hell wants 4 years of a lecturing mother ?

Half her fucking points were Bernies.

Bernies face said everything when Shrillery was talking about him.

His basically said, "Fuck you and everything you stand for you fucking cunt"

Post: #1091

I'm just now looking at the Chelsea speech, and good god! She was talking about fucking dinosaurs! That's bad marketing for Hillary.

She was also making a weird tsking sound every time she paused and opened her mouth which had gone dry.

Post: #1092

(07-29-2016 12:39 AM)RaccoonFace Wrote:  

Looks like she had another seizure with the exaggerated expression she made.

Post: #1093

Also Kareen Abdul-Jabbar was cucking hard tonight. Sad to see a Laker great gone senile.

Post: #1094

I hadn't seen this one on the thread (apologies if I missed it):

Russian ships displayed at DNC tribute to vets

Quote:On the last night of the Democratic National Convention, a retired Navy four-star took the stage to pay tribute to veterans. Behind him, on a giant screen, the image of four hulking warships reinforced his patriotic message.

But there was a big mistake in the stirring backdrop: those are Russian warships.

While retired Adm. John Nathman, a former commander of Fleet Forces Command, honored vets as America's best, the ships from the Russian Federation Navy were arrayed like sentinels on the big screen above.

These were the very Soviet-era combatants that Nathman and Cold Warriors like him had once squared off against.

"The ships are definitely Russian," said noted naval author Norman Polmar after reviewing hi-resolution photos from the event. "There's no question of that in my mind."

Naval experts concluded the background was a photo composite of Russian ships that were overflown by what appear to be U.S. trainer jets. It remains unclear how or why the Democratic Party used what's believed to be images of the Russian Black Sea Fleet at their convention.

A spokesman for the Democratic National Convention Committee was not able to immediately comment Tuesday, saying he had to track down personnel to find out what had happened.

http://www.militarytimes.com/story/milit.../78536950/

I'd say this was unbelievable, but really, does anyone not believe that they screwed up a tribute to Vets?

Post: #1095

Quote:While retired Adm. John Nathman, a former commander of Fleet Forces Command, honored vets as America's best, the ships from the Russian Federation Navy were arrayed like sentinels on the big screen above.

I cant wait to tell my whole command about this tomorrow.

Post: #1096

She acts just like a stupid old bitch washed up school teacher that lives to nag the students to death. Wake up America. This hag is going to do major damage.

Post: #1097

(07-28-2016 11:51 PM)GlobalMan Wrote:  Found this Asian lady's anti-Clinton video clips while looking at some Clinton tweets



https://twitter.com/Taratballz/status/75...0010959872

https://twitter.com/Taratballz/status/75...6735973378

https://twitter.com/Taratballz/status/75...7120031744

A lot of immigrants from Asia have no time for the oppression Olympics victimhood shit that the Democrats try to pull.

Many of these immigrants made something of themselves off their own backs without looking to Uncle Sam for handouts.

I'm an immigrant to the US and I feel the same way.

Post: #1098

The people on her staff must hate her. This picture from her twitter makes her look crazy.

Post: #1099

I am convinced that many visual and audio tricks were at play.

I have an extensive background in sound production, and I also did a good amount of acting when I was coming up.

I can conclude that at many times during her speech crowd noise was faked, and crowd shots were faked.

For anybody with a sound background you could notice that the sound of the cheers did not match up well with the tone of her speech.

Every thing she said was met with the same 4-5 second crowd chant that did not raise or lower in any level.

Thing that were met with genuine loud applause such as her pandering to women did not match up to the crowd shots. One instance showed two people excited while others were texting or looking bored.

Because of all the Hillary signs noise could not be channeled via typical means. Typically you holler with your hands over your mouth to create more noise, or you would clap very loud. Since people did not have hands free the only natural motion would be to wave the Hillary signs with more intensity while you were shouting. If you look at the crowd shots this rarely happened in sync with the shouting after each of her lines.

Lastly, it was all to synced and timely. Her speech was very robotic and actually one of the worst I have ever seen her make. Typically during a gracious crowd shouting they will throw you off timing. The tele prompter person knows the timing and cadence of the speech and will pause and slow the flow of it if needed. This never happened as Hillary was never thrown off her timing, even when she put out bait to the crowd like on women equal pay. It all went 4-5 seconds and she moved on to the next robotic line like clockwork.

She performed much more fluid in the past DNCs. Hillary is not a terrible speech giver but she is not great. Tonight sounded like she was following a script with time plugs. Tonight was a train wreak and with the fake visuals and crowd noise was no better then the May Day shit you see in North Korea. It was a heavily scripted propaganda piece. Nothing was real with it.

The content was not memorable. All she did was talk mis-truths and steal Trumps positions. You hear here talk about taxing Wall Street and getting tough on the wealthy and you laugh. You pull up her donor list and it is obvious she is full of shit.

"I will bring back manufacturing jobs" with TPP? Or will you bring back all the jobs you help bleed from NAFTA? She is full of shit.

Her speech was simply a sound bite dump. Now that she has all these blurbs on the record for the media to recycle non-stop up until November. "Hillary Clinton said this... Trump is wrong" And then play the blurb of her speech with the fake applause. It is all so typical and obvious.

I don't think the USA people are this stupid any longer. Her speech was terrible, her daughter is boring and ugly, and her husband fell sleep.

Post: #1100

delete