Off Topic Thread 3.0

Buer · 12-05-2017 02:06PM

The repetition did work. It appealed to a large section of society in its simplicity both with respect to the message itself and how easy it made things sound.

Make America great again, lock her up, build a wall etc. All very basic, all pounced upon by the electorate. He never got pulled into an in depth discussion on policy. The campaign was ran as a popularity contest, not a presidential election and it worked perfectly.

That doesn't mean the guy isn't a complete buffoon though who is incapable of articulate discussion.

stephen_n · 12-05-2017 02:06PM

Podge_irl wrote: »

Theresa May's "Strong and Stable" shtick is repetition with purpose.

This is just jibbering stream of consciousness nonsense vaguely related to a topic he is trying to focus on. He is incapable of actually stringing together a coherent sentence. It's insane.

If you cross reference that interview with his speeches and other interviews. You'll probably find a theme throughout them all. Maybe 10 bullet points as such. Probably things that have been drilled into him, learned off by heart. The rest is inane egotistical blubber and lies. He is a buffoon, but it's not rambling, he doesn't care about the copy, just the soundbites. He knows that about 90% of people only pay attention to the sound bites anyway, he is the leader of a society with a 4 second attention span. He may well be an idiot but he knows that.

irishbucsfan · 12-05-2017 02:07PM

stephen_n wrote: »

Both campaigns were based on repetition of headline points and a refusal to enter into substantial debate. The belief that if you say it enough times it becomes true.

Having Clinton as his opposition made it easier, but his appeal was based on the repetition of certain statements, that's undeniable. It certainly wasn't his ability to put forward coherent policy options.

Well its certainly not undeniable. I'll happily deny it. You're entirely mischaracterising both processes, there were tons of debates starring people from right across the political spectrum on both sides in the UK for example, and it was Labour/Tory seats that decided the referendum, not UKIP seats.
Which explains why UKIP lost 140 council seats last week, or in other words every single one except for one seat.

Trump won the election due to the collapse of the centre. It's happening across the globe and not just to the benefit of the right-wing parties. Just ask Syriza and the 5-Star Movement who were certainly not repeating simple points and refusing to engage in debates.

irishbucsfan · 12-05-2017 02:09PM

Buer wrote: »

The repetition did work. It appealed to a large section of society in its simplicity both with respect to the message itself and how easy it made things sound.

Make America great again, lock her up, build a wall etc. All very basic, all pounced upon by the electorate. He never got pulled into an in depth discussion on policy. The campaign was ran as a popularity contest, not a presidential election and it worked perfectly.

That doesn't mean the guy isn't a complete buffoon though who is incapable of articulate discussion.

Repetition is a feature of every political race though. "Yes We Can", "I'm With Her" etc. It's been going on for decades.

That doesn't mean it's the reason he won.

Bazzo · 12-05-2017 02:12PM

stephen_n wrote: »

If you cross reference that interview with his speeches and other interviews. You'll probably find a theme throughout them all. Maybe 10 bullet points as such. Probably things that have been drilled into him, learned off by heart. The rest is inane egotistical blubber and lies. He is a buffoon, but it's not rambling, he doesn't care about the copy, just the soundbites. He knows that about 90% of people only pay attention to the sound bites anyway, he is the leader of a society with a 4 second attention span. He may well be an idiot but he knows that.

He can be rambling and still manage to repeat his message.

rambling
ˈramblɪŋ/
adjective
adjective: rambling

1.
(of writing or speech) lengthy and confused or inconsequential.

I think that's a fairly accurate for about 90% of what comes out of his mouth tbh.

scrights · 12-05-2017 02:13PM

Trump won due to mass voter suppression, Clinton being a poor candidate and Comey's interference.

Those factors plus Republicans desire to win at any cost and the average americans stupidity.

Podge_irl · 12-05-2017 02:19PM

stephen_n wrote: »

He may well be an idiot but he knows that.

Jesus, I couldn't disagree with that more. I don't think he has the slightest clue that he is an idiot.

He is repetitive yes, but I would characterise his speech as the very definition of rambling. He knows (or has been told) to bang on about certain topics repeatedly, but he's completely incapable of doing so in any kind of articulate manner. Any sentence that goes over 7 or 8 words descends into ill-connected non-sequiturs before he suddenly jars back to an attempt at a talking point.

Buer · 12-05-2017 02:25PM

irishbucsfan wrote: »

Repetition is a feature of every political race though. "Yes We Can", "I'm With Her" etc. It's been going on for decades.

That doesn't mean it's the reason he won.

I'd agree with that but they were central to his campaign. It gave his voters a vehicle to run their support on. I'm not sure he'd have won without them. They were crucial in terms of developing his momentum.

There was a huge element of dissatisfaction with establishment politics and Obama's moves to a more centre left administration (by America's standards). I do think it was always set up for a Republican to win. The USA is no different from anywhere else. People always see the grass as being greener elsewhere. Neither Republicans nor Democrats have managed to retain the White House for 3 consecutive terms post-WW2.

Podge_irl · 12-05-2017 02:31PM

Buer wrote: »

I'd agree with that but they were central to his campaign. It gave his voters a vehicle to run their support on. I'm not sure he'd have won without them. They were crucial in terms of developing his momentum.

There was a huge element of dissatisfaction with establishment politics and Obama's moves to a more centre left administration (by America's standards). I do think it was always set up for a Republican to win. The USA is no different from anywhere else. People always see the grass as being greener elsewhere. Neither Republicans nor Democrats have managed to retain the White House for 3 consecutive terms post-WW2.

Reagan-GHWB no?

I would agree that Republicans were always likely to win though, but it happened so incredibly weirdly. I imagine a candidate other than Clinton could have won handily enough but on the opposite side I think a "normal" Republican would have been favourite against most people. It was all just weird.

Buer · 12-05-2017 02:34PM

Podge_irl wrote: »

Reagan-GWB no?

God f*cking damn it.

stephen_n · 12-05-2017 02:52PM

irishbucsfan wrote: »

Well its certainly not undeniable. I'll happily deny it. You're entirely mischaracterising both processes, there were tons of debates starring people from right across the political spectrum on both sides in the UK for example, and it was Labour/Tory seats that decided the referendum, not UKIP seats.
Which explains why UKIP lost 140 council seats last week, or in other words every single one except for one seat.

Trump won the election due to the collapse of the centre. It's happening across the globe and not just to the benefit of the right-wing parties. Just ask Syriza and the 5-Star Movement who were certainly not repeating simple points and refusing to engage in debates.

I think you are viewing it very much from personal experience, rather than how it played out. What were the viewing figures for those debates? What percentage of the population actively engaged with that information? Media campaigns and in particular social media campaigns informed a large section of voters in both campaigns. The vast majority of the population have neither the time, nor the inclination for indepth analysis, or for debate. Elections are won on soundbites and headlines. The one thing both campaigns did was use targeted simple messages, to create a certain perception. It was data driven and clever. That in no way makes Trump any less of imbecile, but it is the way he operates. It isn't the only factor that led to Brexit or trumps election, but it is what got it over the line.

stephen_n · 12-05-2017 02:56PM

Podge_irl wrote: »

Jesus, I couldn't disagree with that more. I don't think he has the slightest clue that he is an idiot.

He is repetitive yes, but I would characterise his speech as the very definition of rambling. He knows (or has been told) to bang on about certain topics repeatedly, but he's completely incapable of doing so in any kind of articulate manner. Any sentence that goes over 7 or 8 words descends into ill-connected non-sequiturs before he suddenly jars back to an attempt at a talking point.

I didn't mean he knows he's an idiot, I meant he knows we live in a soundbite culture.

I'm not denying he's rambling, or that it's incoherent mumbo jumbo. I'm just saying it's not without reason.

12-05-2017 03:00PM

Trump is probably reasonably self aware but no one has ever said no to him his entire life. He's ran his business surrounded by the same "Yes" he has heard since he first understood words and doesn't accept any reality outside of this.

I'm sure he knows when he lies and bends the truth but as far as he is concerned he's fundamentally right and it's what he needs to do.

I doubt he feels in anyway guilty about any collusion with Russia regardless of whether it happened or not.

American politics thrives on propaganda porn. However the fact that politicians now know that the truth has little value will open a rather unpleasant floodgate.

Personally I think Mitch McConnell is far worse than Trump.

Podge_irl · 12-05-2017 03:01PM

stephen_n wrote: »

I didn't mean he knows he's an idiot, I meant he knows we live in a soundbite culture.

I'm not denying he's rambling, or that it's incoherent mumbo jumbo. I'm just saying it's not without reason.

Ah, apologies.

It's not without reason no. It's not done very well though. To be honest, his career is not without success and I'm generally fairly loathe to refer to anyone as an "idiot" as its very rarely true. But I've listened to and read through a number of these types of interviews and its depressing and worrying how infantile he comes across.

irishbucsfan · 12-05-2017 03:01PM

stephen_n wrote: »

I think you are viewing it very much from personal experience, rather than how it played out. What were the viewing figures for those debates? What percentage of the population actively engaged with that information? Media campaigns and in particular social media campaigns informed a large section of voters in both campaigns. The vast majority of the population have neither the time, nor the inclination for indepth analysis, or for debate. Elections are won on soundbites and headlines. The one thing both campaigns did was use targeted simple messages, to create a certain perception. It was data driven and clever. That in no way makes Trump any less of imbecile, but it is the way he operates. It isn't the only factor that led to Brexit or trumps election, but it is what got it over the line.

I don't think the debates had much influence at all. I never said they had any influence. You were the one who said that the campaigns were refusing to engage in debate. In fact the opposite was true in that case. And in the case of the US election it was Hilary who resisted debate more than anyone else. If you have any statistics to provide to show that the election was won on soundbites I'd be happy to see them.

I'm not viewing it from personal experience. I'm viewing it through the lense that many others are.

CatFromHue · 12-05-2017 03:45PM

I don't think Trump did anything more than what a lot of other politicians did to get elected recently, bar him turning it up to 11.

1) One maybe 2 populist issues (immigration/make America great or say water charges/housing)
2) Repeatedly point out all the problems that have happened since the Global Financial Collapse but be pretty vague on the context of what happened or how you'd fix it (all the supposed job losses since 08 or all the austerity we've gone through)
3) Say you're going to take out corruption (crooked Hilary or crooked FF/FG/Lab)

That with him going against a very very weak candidate got him through the gates. I spend a bit of time over in the states before the election and an awful lot of people really did not like Clinton or the Democrats. They would have voted for a 3 week out Pot Noodle instead of Clinton if it came down to it.

12-05-2017 07:33PM

molloyjh wrote: »

Tough to ignore the US President in fairness.

yeah. it's a situation where the best possible approach is to ignore the idiot. but somehow that idiot has got himself to a position where he can't be ignored.

what is the hope here? the 2018 midterms somehow result in a democrat majority and they impeach? we wait for him to properly **** up and current congress impeaches? (not sure what that'd be in the context of what has gone already) or wait for his term to be up and hope the majority of US public has a bit of sense in 2020? or something else?

12-05-2017 07:59PM

Kailani Dirty Teenager wrote: »

yeah. it's a situation where the best possible approach is to ignore the idiot. but somehow that idiot has got himself to a position where he can't be ignored.

what is the hope here? the 2018 midterms somehow result in a democrat majority and they impeach? we wait for him to properly **** up and current congress impeaches? (not sure what that'd be in the context of what has gone already) or wait for his term to be up and hope the majority of US public has a bit of sense in 2020? or something else?

He'll be president for 4 years unless they can tie him to something with foreign interests or his tax returns come out and are seriously compromising. Either way, Pence will come in and even though he is too tainted for 2020 they'll bring in their front runner as VP.

2018 aren't ideal for the Dems, the republicans have half the number of seats up for grabs and their all deep red states so unlikely to flip. Dems could actually be worse off believe it or not.

12-05-2017 08:31PM

Who the fcuk takes down the computers in a hospital. Literally killing people

Squidgy Black · 12-05-2017 09:00PM

Deleted User wrote: »

Who the fcuk takes down the computers in a hospital. Literally killing people

Wasn't specifically targeted at the NHS http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-39901382

It's done by exposing a Windows vulnerability. Was patched by Microsoft in March but a lot of machines weren't updated apparently.

13-05-2017 08:36PM

Eurovision is class.

Erik Shin · 13-05-2017 09:06PM

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Eurovision is class.

Dana International in it again this year ?

13-05-2017 10:34PM

Pretty impressive day for Owen Farrell.

Wins the Champions Cup. Wins player of the year.

Presents the Eurovision Song Contest.

Stheno · 13-05-2017 10:44PM

Mwahaha Aussie got on stage and mooned

13-05-2017 10:52PM

sydthebeat · 13-05-2017 11:00PM

Weird thing with the eurovision is that could just as easily been part of the show...

DGRulz · 14-05-2017 07:55AM

Seemingly the guy is a Ukrainian "prankster" by the name of Vetalii Sediuk. He's the same guy that "pranked" Kim Kardashian and later Gigi Hadid last year before Hadid knocked his block off.

mfceiling · 14-05-2017 07:58AM

mfceiling wrote: »

2 tips.for it today.

Sweden at 10/1 and Moldova at 100/1.

Seriously lads these came from a very good source.

Moldova 3rd?? Not sure if they started or stayed near 100/1 though.

Squidgy Black · 14-05-2017 11:23AM

DGRulz wrote: »

Seemingly the guy is a Ukrainian "prankster" by the name of Vetalii Sediuk. He's the same guy that "pranked" Kim Kardashian and later Gigi Hadid last year before Hadid knocked his block off.

Prankster is a loose term for him, he seems to just assault celebrities and grab them and call it a prank.

14-05-2017 11:58AM

_Tyrrell_ wrote: »

Prankster is a loose term for him, he seems to just assault celebrities and grab them and call it a prank.

The direct translation of prankster in French is "as$hole"

Off Topic Thread 3.0

Comments