Seahawks4Ever wrote:It is what he tweets not that he tweets.
Seahawkgal wrote:I agree with Rob that Twitter is garbage. Just gossip and hearsay.
Having said that; Yes, turn off FOX News BUT ALSO CNN!!! Both have their biased agendas. I hate the general News media. I don't trust or believe ANY of them. True Journalism is DEAD!
All I know is where I stand on individual ISSUES. I don't ally with a political side. I never have. Our world is so EFFED UP right now, it seriously is. Sigh. Sorry for my rant.
Aseahawkfan wrote:The man used Twitter to win an election. He's never getting off it. I never thought a 70 year old man would have used Twitter more effectively than so many of his younger competitors.
RiverDog wrote:The major reason Trump won the election has nothing to do with Twitter. The major reason Trump won the presidency is because the Democrats nominated a reptile.
I miss integrity and Obama.
Aseahawkfan wrote:It's not the main reason, but Trump used Twitter to bypass the media as you already stated and rally his supporters. And it was most assuredly an effective tool in his arsenal to get his message across and helped him win the election. He's not going to stop using it, so I would get that idea out of your head. A Twitter from Trump literally sends the mainstream and online media into a frenzy garnishing him massive exposure. He's likely the most popular (not necessarily in a good way) and followed (I don't mean necessary hitting the follow key) twitterer in the world You go ahead and believe it had no effect on the election, but I believe it was one of the most effective uses of Twitter in the modern political era.
Twitter and its like are not going away any time soon. Politicians are going to have to learn to use it more effectively for the growing attention challenged and electronically addicted electorate. More and more people are using their phones to interact with the world including getting their news. Those tiny screens are tailor made for social media like Twitter, Instagram, Snapchat, and Youtube.
Sorry to disappoint you, but the future is blurbs and tweets and other short-form media. The era of having to know anything real is over. Book readers are shrinking. And even watchers of educational channels are shrinking. Social Media and the Internet are the future. You better know how to use it effectively to manipulate the masses. Trump has used it as effectively as anyone I've ever seen. I never saw so many stories based on tweets or tweet discussions until he was in office. It's ridiculous.
Now do I think it's going to lead to a better world? Hell no, I don't. Is it going to continue? Yes, it is. I see all these young people on their phones getting their news from social media feeds on Facebook and the like and I know it's over for the intelligent, educated American.
RiverDog wrote:Trump had less popular support (46.4%) than Romney did in 2012 (47.2%), so it's a little difficult to argue that Trump was able to motivate his base in a way that his predecessor didn't or couldn't.
The differences in popular vote percentages between Romney in 2012 and Trump in 2016 suggests that it wasn't so much that Trump's base turned out for him than it was that Hillary's base turned their backs on her as she was not able to get her base out in the same numbers that Obama was able to do just 4 years earlier. That's why I said that the main reason Trump won the election is that the Dems nominated a snake.
Twitter was a new means of communicating but IMO it did not have nearly the effect on the election that radio had for FDR in 1932 or that television had for JFK in 1960.
I'm not sure what led you to say that I was 'disappointed' in a future of tweets and blurbs, but you are mistaken. IMO it's no different than the 15 second sound bite that candidates have been using on television and radio for decades, just a different means of saying it. The nation has such a short attention span that they are subject to tweets, blurbs, sound bites, or whatever you want to call a short, 25 words or less statement.
Aseahawkfan wrote:What do you mean by popular support? Do you mean Republicans or the general popular vote? Trump is not a Republican, he's a wild card that somehow won the Republican card. You're using a very strange way to make your point. His base was not solely Republican. Romney got more popular support as you call it because he was a Republican and closer to a centrist. Trump bypassed the parties to garner support from a lot of independents using social media. He's going to be a political case study for years given what he did. He beat all the mainstream Republicans. Then he beat a powerful, well-backed Democrat. I'm still not sure he wouldn't have beat a Bernie Sanders as well. He's a little too Socialist and he's Jewish. I knew quite a few Republicans that didn't vote for Romney because he was Mormon. I have little doubt that being Jewish would have hurt Sanders. The Democrats really had no one to go against Trump. I'm still surprised the man won the Republican card, much less the shock of winning the election.
Radio and Television likely had more of an effect than social media. Social media is a powerful way to bypass the mainstream, moreso than radio or television ever was. Businesses controlled television and radio. Social media is still the wild west.
I see. You weren't disappointed. You seem to think Twitter is a good way to communicate. I hate that crap myself. The lack of educated and engaged electorate is why we're where we're at. I believe we will only remain relevant if we are making money for someone. Once the world can robotize everything, it's going to change dramatically how many people we need to maintain a functioning world. That's a ways off and I won't have to deal with it.
kalibane wrote:You know what's sad Riv? (at least in terms of how it reflects on our society) I think one of the biggest reasons Biden would have run roughshod over Trump is there probably would have been at least a handful of times where his off the cuff responses to Trump's infantile name calling would have drawn into sharp contrast how small a man Trump is. And unlike Marco "small hands" Rubio or Hillary "Trumped up Trickle Down" Clinton, it would have come across as authentic.
Ironically his propensity for "gaffes" that had held him back for years would have all of a sudden been an asset.
RiverDog wrote:Where and how Trump won the election was in the rust belt states of PA, OH, MI, and WI, and he did it with his "America first" theme that appealed to a lot of white males w/o a college degree (and not as likely to be beholden to Twitter as other groups), former auto and steel workers/families that in their eyes, saw their jobs being outsourced to foreign companies. He ran a brilliant campaign while his opponent ran an absolutely horrid campaign, as she couldn't get traditional Democratic voters to turn out for her. Blacks, for example, turned out in far fewer numbers in 2016 than they had in the recent past. The percentages of blacks that voted in 2016 decreased by a full 7% from 2012, and reversed an upward trend that started in 1996. It was the biggest change in any demographic group. That's a pretty stark fact that I'd like to present to the kneeling, protesting NFL players...there's a strong argument to be made that they, more so than any other demographic group, are the ones that allowed Donald Trump to gain the presidency.
I didn't say that I 'liked' Twitter. As I noted earlier, even though I have an account, I don't use it. The only social media I use is Facebook, and I do that to keep track of the activities of some of my long lost friends. What I am doing is acknowledging it as a communication vehicle and have equated it to the 15 second sound bite, those brief spot ads or photo ops that highlight a theme. I don't feel Twitter has dramatically changed the political landscape to the same degree that you feel it has, at least not in campaigns. Trump is using it to govern, which I don't like at all. I can see using it when he thinks he's not getting a fair shake from the press, but he's using it for far more than just bypassing the press, he's using it to spout any and every knee jerk reaction he has to news he doesn't like.
Good debate. Thanks for keeping it civil.
Aseahawkfan wrote:The black vote is unlikely to turn out anywhere near the numbers Obama obtained again. That's not a surprise for obvious reasons.
RiverDog wrote:It was bound to drop some, but a 7% decline is huge, and is the largest decline of any racial or ethnic demographic since '92. Black voting was higher in 2004 when Obama wasn't on the radar. Plus you have to factor into the mix that Donald Trump was perhaps the most racially divisive presidential candidate since David Duke, and that fact alone should have generated a higher turnout. Polls of non voting blacks, when asked why they didn't vote, showed that the #1 reason for them not voting was that they didn't like the candidates, which considering the rate at which blacks vote for Dems, can be translated into that they didn't like Hillary.
In other ethnic groups, ie Hispanics and Asians, voter participation remained flat, which again when you take into account Trump's very caustic attitude towards minorities and immigrants, should have resulted in a ground swell of voters flocking into Hillary's camp. In 14 of the 34 states that had Senate elections, more people voted in the Senate race than voted for POTUS.
All those stats helps to paint a very clear and unmistakable picture: The #1 reason to why we got stuck with Donald Trump is Hillary Clinton.
Largent80 wrote:^ Nope. Sanders would have easily won. And he will in 2020, calling it right now.
Largent80 wrote:^ Nope. Sanders would have easily won. And he will in 2020, calling it right now.
Hawktawk wrote:I still think Pence will be running in 2020. Looking at Muellers legal team he's going for the kill.
I believe he will uncover impeachable offenses and the question will be whether the congress will go along.
Either way some people are going to challenge trump if he makes it long enough to seek a second term.
Corker, Kasich, even Pence if he doesn't want to be forever soiled as trumps enabling lapdog.
Among dems Corey Booker, Kamela Harris, I suppose Cuomo is viable, Elizabeth warren may run.
ABT
c_hawkbob wrote:People don't seem to get it; the divide in this country isn't Left vs Right, Republican vs democrat, liberal hippie vs good old boy conservative, those are just the chew toys they give us to occupy ourselves while they go on about the business of raping the countries greatest resource: it's people.
The divide in this country is Wall Street vs Main Street, The board room vs the break room, the Ultra Rich vs those that they manipulate via a corrupt system to maintain their status as the Ultra Rich.
I fully expect that Cuban would be a better President than Trump (but that's a pretty low bar to step over, he'd have to dig to get under it), but I'd sure like to see a president whose concern is for the people of this country instead of protecting the system that made them so f*ckin rich.
RiverDog wrote:
IMO we won't get that from our current 2 party system, which is one of the reasons why I voted for Johnson.
I've always felt that a businessman would make a better POTUS than a career politician, but not this businessman. Being POTUS is more than pushing buttons and throwing levers, it's serving as the country's moral compass. They don't have to be the Pope, but they do have to hold themselves to a higher standard if they are to be an effective leader of a diverse group of people. That's why that even though I didn't vote for him, I was OK with Obama. All too often, Trump lowers himself to the level of those that attack him.
c_hawkbob wrote:Well I fundamentally disagree with you. Businesses are in the business of making money, our money. I think they are the worst choice for POTUS.
RiverDog wrote:
Popular vote. That should be self explanatory as I attached popular vote percentages to Romney and Trump.
Aseahawkfan wrote:
And Trump doesn't care. He's going to be super rich when he's done, just like he's super rich while he's president. This is all to feed his ego. He's likely being manipulated by more political savvy people in the White House.
I'm starting to doubt anyone worthwhile even wants to run for President any longer. It doesn't pay much. It's almost guaranteed that 30 to 40% of the nation will despise you. And the amount of lies and BS that will circulate about you on the Internet and with the media has reached stupid levels. You don't have a great deal of real power. You're basically the face man for a powerful nation run by an oligarchy.
Largent80 wrote:^ Nope. Sanders would have easily won. And he will in 2020, calling it right now.
Hawktawk wrote:I still think Pence will be running in 2020. Looking at Muellers legal team he's going for the kill.
c_hawkbob wrote:People don't seem to get it; the divide in this country isn't Left vs Right, Republican vs democrat, liberal hippie vs good old boy conservative, those are just the chew toys they give us to occupy ourselves while they go on about the business of raping the countries greatest resource: it's people.
The divide in this country is Wall Street vs Main Street, The board room vs the break room, the Ultra Rich vs those that they manipulate via a corrupt system to maintain their status as the Ultra Rich.
I fully expect that Cuban would be a better President than Trump (but that's a pretty low bar to step over, he'd have to dig to get under it), but I'd sure like to see a president whose concern is for the people of this country instead of protecting the system that made them so f*ckin rich.
Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 8 guests