Conventions without criticism of the other side would be pointless.

 

I agree, but the RNC was labelled as the "anti-Hillary convention." It seems like there has been more anti-Trump messages at the DNC, so I am wondering if it will get a similar title.

Have you witnessed all the anti-Trump rhetoric? Just wondering how you feel it compares to the anti-Clinton rhetoric you saw at the RNC.

 

I have noticed it in the parts I've seen. I think it's just standard practice now on both sides. Maybe it's that way every 4 years and I just forget.

 

The other thing I forgot to mention as far as messaging is that it's a clear distinction between tone and outlook on the country. It's not as gloomy as Trump says and it's not as rosy as HRC et al claim but I do think that gloomy approach is a bad move by Trump. IT works great with a chunk of the Rs as evidenced by him being the candidate but I'm not sure it resonates with enough people to get him the office.

I'm not sure what you mean here. Can you elaborate?

 

HHSHOG pretty much summed it up. It feels like we have to change our culture and accept everyone otherwise we are racist bigots. What is wrong with having an American culture.

HHSHOG pretty much summed it up. It feels like we have to change our culture and accept everyone otherwise we are racist bigots. What is wrong with having an American culture.

 

What is "American culture" and who defines it?

 

(By the way, that's rhetorical.)

From what I've gathered the R's spent much more time bashing.

I'm wondering how many posters, like me, have watched most of both conventions? From my perspective, what you said is definitely true.

I agree, but the RNC was labelled as the "anti-Hillary convention." It seems like there has been more anti-Trump messages at the DNC, so I am wondering if it will get a similar title.

 

I'd say no.

 

The RNC was an anti-Hillary convention largely because of the lack of Candidate Trump's redeeming qualities.

 

While there has been the expected anti-Trump rhetoric at the DNC, it has also been infused with significantly more positive support for their own candidate. Just my opinion.

It's funny, until you remember that Seth Richard, who was a DNC voter data analyst, was mysteriously gunned down at 4 in the morning a couple weeks ago with no suspects named. It is being ruled off as a botched robbery, yet when he was found he still had his wallet and phone on him.

 

Add him to the long list of people with Clinton ties that mysteriously perished.

 

Yep...all the people who have caused the Clinton's the biggest trouble wind up dead....Monica, Linda Tripp, Ken Starr, Paula Jones......I can't believe people buy into this...

HHSHOG pretty much summed it up. It feels like we have to change our culture and accept everyone otherwise we are racist bigots. What is wrong with having an American culture.

 

America has always been a melting pot, even prior to 1776. There have always been immigrant communities. We are a collection of people with a variety of different customs, traditions, and yes, first languages. To standardize everything WOULD be changing the culture we have. So, in a way, I agree with you. Our differences make us better. They give us more depth and perspective.

America has always been a melting pot, even prior to 1776. There have always been immigrant communities. We are a collection of people with a variety of different customs, traditions, and yes, first languages. To standardize everything WOULD be changing the culture we have. So, in a way, I agree with you. Our differences make us better. They give us more depth and perspective.

 

You said it better than I could. Diversity is what has made this and what continues to make this the greatest nation on earth.

 

Contrary to what I feel - and maybe it's just me - from the other side of the political aisle.

 

Sorry, Bernie the Clin-mafia had you beat before you started.

I agree, but the RNC was labelled as the "anti-Hillary convention." It seems like there has been more anti-Trump messages at the DNC, so I am wondering if it will get a similar title.

 

What percentage of each convention would you say that you watched? There's still one night to go, but I've watched most of both conventions. The RNC was much more "anti-Hillary" than the DNC was been "anti-Trump." Tonight could change that, however.

I have noticed it in the parts I've seen. I think it's just standard practice now on both sides. Maybe it's that way every 4 years and I just forget.

 

The other thing I forgot to mention as far as messaging is that it's a clear distinction between tone and outlook on the country. It's not as gloomy as Trump says and it's not as rosy as HRC et al claim but I do think that gloomy approach is a bad move by Trump. IT works great with a chunk of the Rs as evidenced by him being the candidate but I'm not sure it resonates with enough people to get him the office.

 

In my mind, and I have held this belief for a while, is the Conservatives are typically more realist, while liberals tend to be more idealist. I think a successful government needs both. You need to have those who say what are goals and aspirations need to be, but then you also need to have those who tell you what the situation is actually like, and give realistic solutions.

 

In my opinion, for the most part, the RNC was an actual portrayal of our current situation. you can't ignore the problems ISIS presents, both abroad and domestically. You cant ignore the uptick in violence here in the US. You can't ignore that we are finding ourselves on the short end of the stick of trade deals. I think Trumps speech, and the general theme of the convention, was highlighting where we are right now.

 

Now, we go to the DNC, where they are focusing on where they think we should be going. This explains why they have made it seem rosier than it actually is. They want to provide solutions, without really acknowledging the problems. I know they didn't mention ISIS once on day one, and I am not sure about day two. However, neglecting to acknowledge one of the most significant opposition forces our country has faced in recent history is telling to me: that they don't want to indicate the issues we face today, but rather that "everything is going to be alright"

 

Like I said, I think both though processes are necessary, but I think the tone differentials exist as a result of the differing (outlooks?)

I think she has the makings of a much better President tht the alternative. But that's not anything close to a ringing endorsement.

 

I feel the same way.

I don't watch either convention. All both sides do is bash the other.

 

But I think the Dems bash more as expected and get away with more.

 

Also I find it so hard to listen to those liberals, they are so stupid and out of touch.

So, you don't watch but still draw that conclusion? Interesting slant.

America has always been a melting pot, even prior to 1776. There have always been immigrant communities. We are a collection of people with a variety of different customs, traditions, and yes, first languages. To standardize everything WOULD be changing the culture we have. So, in a way, I agree with you. Our differences make us better. They give us more depth and perspective.

 

How have we handled immigrants during periods of conflict, when those immigrants come from the region we are at conflict with, in the past?