JMALL HAS AWOKEN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I'VE FLUNG OFF MY HILLARY DERANGEMENT SYNDROME AND HAVE FULLY COMMITTED TO FIGHTING WITH HER AND DEFEATING TRUMP. IT TOOK ME A WHILE, BUT I HAD TO GO THROUGH A MOURNING PROCESS AND EVEN ASK THE UN-ASKABLE - COULD TRUMP BE BETTER? THAT TIME IS OVER NOW AND I HAVE COME TO MY SENSES!!!

I AM HERE TO DEFEAT TRUMP!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Could this be the playbook to defeating him?


Regardless, we need to do some things ASAP:

1.) Reach disillusioned Bernie supporters and millennials
2.) Reach independents
3.) Reach disillusioned Republicans
4.) Reason with people online with kindness, facts, patience, sound reasoning, and perseverance.

On #4, I gave some tips on this earlier, but would like to reiterate:

It's not a good idea to address anyone in those outreach groups in any kind of a hostile manner. So many are already rightfully upset with politics in this nation (I was one of them). And saying things like, "If you don't vote Hillary, you might as well be voting Trump. Do you support racism? Is that what you want in this country?"

Antagonizing someone like that - at least, in my view - isn't a good strategy. Nor, is trying to sugarcoat and hide Hillary's flaws. As I said earlier, people already know her record and understand her many deep flaws. One of them is that she's dishonest and corrupt. So, if you approach pitching her with even MORE dishonesty with sugarcoating stuff or always defending her on the indefensible, then you're only going to reaffirm the reasons why people don't like her to begin with. I see this mistake and strategy done ALL THE TIME (I assume people who debate for her know the truth are aren't just genuinely ignorant of it). Even on 2p2. Maybe, especially on 2p2 with some people?

Trust me. It doesn't work and is actually extremely insulting. It is. It's because a lot of her faults hurt a lot of people deeply. You can't just say to someone like that (e.g., a person who's father or cousin, etc. went to jail over a petty crime and wound up having their life fall apart and get trapped in poverty) that Hillary's better than Trump. They may know that intellectually, but emotionally and in their experience, they may have been hurt by Hillary's supported policies. And even in principle, it's wrong to silence a victim's voice and hurts. We should let them vent and let them speak their pain. We should stand with them and let them know we understand they're hurting.

Equally important, we have to be honest about Hillary and let them know she's done wrong, but that she's got a chance to make right and has good people around her like Bernie Sanders, President Obama, Elizabeth Warren, etc. to pull in her the right direction. And if she wants any chance at re-election, she'll have to listen to the massive progressive left (and others) that gave her their vote.

Let these on-the-fence voters know that you honestly understand their legitimate reservations and that you see hope at the end of the tunnel. Reach out to them and say, let's work together to beat the worst Presidential nominee of all-time, work together to fight for shared values, and hold Hillary accountable. We can do this if we work together (sound familiar Bernie supporters?) You honor that person's concerns when you do that and show that Hillary and her supporters are honest people too.

Then, focus on why despite Hillary's flaws, she's still a much better candidate than Trump (see the video from Sec. Talk on some reasons why).

If need be, as a last resort, warn people that not voting could potentially result in the worst President of all-time winning and taking our country 10 steps back in human rights, international security, and maybe even the economy.

This doesn't reflect everyone I've encountered, but it is with a lot who are Hillary supporters. I've seen a lot of arrogance on Hillary supporters' part. They almost seem to think they're entitled to get Bernie supports, millennials, independents, and disillusioned Republicans votes. They way they talk to those on the fence is with either an angry tone or a "we're obviously right and you're wrong" type of attitude. I think that hurts bridges and relationships between the two sides. And even if you are right that a normally rational person SHOULD vote Hillary over Trump, the way you convince people shouldn't be through arrogance, insult, or anger.

Try to listen to people's frustrations and fears. VALIDATE them, DON'T try to hide the truth. Let them know you understand them. And THEN begin to reason with them. That way, you've built a bond, have shown yourself to be reasonable and honest, and can start talking about the logical stuff. The logic is ON OUR SIDE. Trump IS worse than Hillary. But I think the disconnect is in the approach people are taking. Start by lending an open and supportive ear first and building a trust. Then they will be more likely to listen to your logic.

My .02 cents.

I think this is what will be a godsend for hillary. Polling certainly seems to make assumptions that both sides are doing GOTV efforts, because historically there's never been a candidate so full of himself that he didn't think he needed a GOTV effort.

One thing I'm sad about from the hillary camp is that they should have spent the last month before the election hammering trump on how he sounds like a scummy used car salesman. Really attack his speaking style, ticks, and habits. The stuff he can't change. Make the image stick and then every time he gets into his BELIEVE ME shtick, it just makes the image stick even more.

The debate would basically be a billion dollars in free advertising for hilldawg had she set this up right.

the hilarious thing that i think a lot of people miss is that trump started his entire campaign off the same way dictators in 3rd world countries do: bribes

In dirt-poor countries, it's frequently down to bribes who wins elections. Give away the most shoes or crockpots and you get the most votes in an area.

Trump couldn't find enough people to attend his hate rally so he had to bribe actors to pretend to support him. Just textbook 3rd world corruption from the off.

Seems like a good time to remind people of this chart. Which empirically establishes Trump as a massive liar and Clinton as a politician.

I updated it today. I know that it only counts unique statements, so Clinton saying the FBI sung her email praises only gets one PoF no matter how many times she said it. And Trump saying that Clinton has no childcare plan, or that there could be 3 or 30M illegal immigrants, or that inner city crime is reaching record levels, or or or only get counted once.

FWIW I ordered the chart by assigning a 0-5 rating (0 for PoF, 5 for True) rating to each category and calculating a weighted average. Clinton checks in the highest at 3.30. Everyone else on the chart except Cruz (2.21) and Trump are between 2.89 and 3.29. Trump's weighted average was 1.78.

You were baffled that someone would claim Muslim rape is being covered up in Europe. Yet here is a concrete example with over a thousand victims and a wide scale cover up for over a decade simply because they didn't want to "give oxygen" to racism. Who's kidding who here?

It seems highly unlikely that an overtly racist candidate could be otherwise acceptable to me on all other issues. The diseased thought processes that lead to racism are sure to infect other policies.

nah, i'm sure we'll get some klansman running for office soon who wants to expand the welfare state and provide equal opportunities for african americans

I do not know not having experience in this area. I am not a profiler nor knows what the red flags might be, but I want the process screening people that might have been tainted by this faux ideology to be extremely diligent.

I assume neither the screening process today is good nor bad. But I want it as tight as humanly possible. The Israelis have extensive experience letting arabs/Muslims in and out on a regular basis and I assume they might have a list of best practices or something of that nature.

To me, this is life or death stuff and I want a process as meticulous as possible, I don't just assume it is optimal because my team is in charge. 19 guys who mostly didn't speak English got in here during Bush's reign and killed 3,000 people and I'd prefer not to see a replay.

The distinction between sincere racists and those who are willing to say racist stuff to achieve other ends is supremely unimportant.

So basically you have no idea how things work and no clear concept of how you think they should work. You just want somebody to say things that make you feel better. Whether or not they are factual or have any basis in reality at all is irrelevant. TRUMP 2016!

Do you apply this same level of diligence to gun control, to help stop the 10 times as many yearly deaths as what happened on 9/11?

Are you planning on living to 700? :-)

First of all, that isn't the issue at hand , but I'll be happy to indulge you.

If you are asking me if all potential gun owners should be screened to the full extent of the law and the laws should be stringent w/r/t background checks / any history of violence/mental disorders, certainly.

I went to a military school and was a very good shot, but never personally felt the utility in owning a gun and I don't ever expect to, but I believe any mentally competent citizen should have that choice, should he/she cares to exercise it.

Does that answer your query sufficiently?

Please enlighten us with your intimate knowledge of the process. I do not think you characterized my thoughts accurately.

Where do you guys come up with this ****?

Apparently conservatives believe self-proclaiming "I am a racist," doesn't necessarily make you one. You need to have actually partaken in violence against a minority, purely due to their race! Solid definition imo.

re polifact

Facts are generally more for Democrats but Bush and Rubio did ok.

Bernie was hardly perfect there, but the only one whose pants were never on fire.

Trump is a pathological liar.

Cruz is a careful scumbag.

Oh, it's even better (worse) than that.

"Skittles" has basically been an inside joke among the alt-right about the hilarious killing of demon-spawn Trayvon Martin by the Honourable George Zimmerman.

Trump thinks it's sad that the bombing suspect gets access to medical care and a lawyer.

This election continues to be about what it means to be an American.

Trump Jr. is just a straight up Neo-Nazi. Full stop.

the funny part to me is just how blatant the hypocrisy is this election

like, if it came out hillary was buying 6 foot self-portraits with clinton foundation cash, they'd have her locked up so quick it'd make your head spin.

Trump does it? Hey, that's fine, nbd.

If hillary had been fined for breaking the law re: political donations, that'd be the top FAUX NEWS story every night until the election.

Trump was? Hey, whatever!

What he means is if you use racist rhetoric to stir up racism for your benefit, you're a racist. If you "know better" actually makes it worse.

You are wrong. Most people do care about the intentions, motivations and charachter of politicians. If you don't get that then you don't understand people.

Trump's inner heart isn't secret. It's rotten.

People on the left, Pakistani, and Muslims all condemned this. Wtf are you even talking about? Stop reading Breitbart you ****ing Rhodes scholar.

I dont really understand and I dont event want to know