fandomsecrets | [ SECRET POST #3489 ]

[ SECRET POST #3489 ]

⌈ Secret Post #3489 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.

01.

__________________________________________________

02.

__________________________________________________

03.

__________________________________________________

04.

__________________________________________________

05.

__________________________________________________

06.

__________________________________________________

07. [repeat]

__________________________________________________

08.

__________________________________________________

09.

__________________________________________________

10.

Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 03 pages, 63 secrets from Secret Submission Post #499.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

Do you have any evidence at all for that?

No. You won't find any evidence for that in the mainstream media.

So you have evidence for it, but it's not in the mainstream media?

But you and I are talking as friends, anon! Please share your evidence with me, I'm really interested!

Do you understand what "no" means? I do not have evidence. I am stating an opinion.

You were making a prediction about something that's going to happen.

"I think Trump is good" is an opinion. "Moderates will vote for Trump" is a statement about the future actions of people in the world that can be analyzed, talked about, and that people can form opinions on. But it is not an opinion.

My bad. "I believe" moderates are going to vote for Trump. "I think" Brexit is a strong indicator of the populist sentiment sweeping the West.

Okay, see, those still aren't opinions, but they are actually exactly the kind of evidence I was looking for, so thank you!

I see what you mean on Brexit. I think it's a valid argument. I don't think the situations are precisely analogous.

First, because British and American politics (and society) are just different. So there's a degree of uncertainty between the two. In particular, I think - frankly - political machines in the United States are just much, much, much more competent than their equivalents in Britain, and forced by the different systems of politics to be much more in touch with constituents than British politicians are, making shock insurgent wins like that much less likely.

Second, because the British case was a referendum on an issue, not an election of a person. You didn't have to affirmatively choose to have Boris Johnson run the country if you wanted to vote for Brexit; you do need to affirmatively vote for Trump, and that's a higher bar to clear, I think.

Third, I think the electoral college (and the swing state dynamic it engenders) makes it much more difficult for something like Brexit to succeed - it's a higher barrier because you can't just win a majority of votes, you have to win a majority of states, and the states that could go either way are going to be targeted by really sophisticated electoral operations.

Fourth, I think the relative polling strengths of Brexit and Trump are not necessarily encouraging for Trump.

So those are the three reasons I don't think Brexit is necessarily indicative of what's going to happen in America. But it's certainly possible. Obviously a lot of the concerns are the same and Trump has a real chance.

Keep telling yourself all that if it makes you feel better.

I mean, we're going to see in November either way.

Hilary's got a far more competant team and plan, especially in places where Trump literally has no plan. The GOP will only want to spend so much of their own cash without any infrastructure. If antyhing will turn things for him, it will be the current racial unrests in this country, that's what you should have used. Lord knows his VP pick won't win him any favors.

"mainstream media" is code for "please do not take me seriously" hth

Have you been keeping up with the DNC leaks?

The ones that state that the DNC didn't like the outsider candidate that had joined their party for all of five minutes before he started harrumphing about how evil the establishment was? In other news, water is wet.

"Didn't like" is an interesting way to summarize it.

It's not that they didn't like him, that's to be expected. It's that they claimed to be fair and not pro-any candidate. Obviously they were biased and everybody could tell, but how long and how hard they lied. Then they expect us to trust them.

Bernie isn't a Democrat though. He signed on with the Democrats so he could use their platform for greater exposure. It doesn't make him a Democrat. The DNC is for Democrats.

I voted for Bernie, and I like Bernie, and I wish he was the nominee, but let's be real here, he was having to work within a system that's broken for third party candidates.

This comment thread was originally about the media. Are you just going to skirt around their involvement?

The media's involvement in what?

If you're going to talk about The Media™, I read some interesting stuff about Trump not actually being as popular as the media were painting him until way into his campaign--basically, everyone bought the hype; much of his early support didn't exist until after news reports said it did.

AYRT

I don't care what Bernie is or what Bernie is not. I 100% understand why they were not behind him and why they were dead set on coronating Hillary. Their motives are not my point.

The DNC and media told us to our faces and lied long and hard that they were fair and not pro-any candidate.

Fool me twice, shame on me. What reason should I trust them for?

The comment proves that they didn't like him after he started telling his followers they were corrupt when his own lack of organization cost him anything and giving a pathetic non-condemnation of his followers' violence in Nevada.

There is still not a single shred of proof that they treated Sanders any differently, just that they didn't like him after he behaved in an unlikeable manner. You can prove they didn't like him, but you can't prove that they weren't fair. Especially when those emails show them reaching out to him multiple times

And I'd love to know what sort of "coronation" involves getting more votes than your opponent. Especially when Bernie fans are really hoping that the superdelegates will, for the first time, completely ignore the popular vote and just hand the candidacy over to the guy who couldn't get his shit together.

Side question: where are Bernie's tax returns? Why has the FEC report of illegal donations been growing to over 1000 pages? When is he going to pay back that money he illegally spent to take his family on vacation to the Vatican?

This comment applies equally to the DNC and the mainstream media.

But mainstream media should be particularly ashamed.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

[ SECRET POST #3489 ]

Re: Confession thread

Re: Confession thread

Re: Confession thread

Re: Confession thread

Re: Confession thread

Re: Confession thread

Re: Confession thread

Re: Confession thread

Re: Confession thread

Re: Confession thread

Re: Confession thread

Re: Confession thread

Re: Confession thread

Re: Confession thread

Re: Confession thread

Re: Confession thread

Re: Confession thread

Re: Confession thread

Re: Confession thread

Re: Confession thread

Re: Confession thread

Re: Confession thread

Re: Confession thread