| Forum Index > Closed |
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please. In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. | ||
|
ragz_gt
9172 Posts
On October 14 2015 14:20 GreenHorizons wrote: Source I don't trust Luntz at all but do appreciate the helpful press. The story sounds totally fake and lame. Is the focus group like the focus group in Chevy commercial? | ||
|
darthfoley
United States8003 Posts
Hillary Clinton: B/B+ (had a few weak moments, but she was solidly solid for most of the debate) Bernie Sanders: B+ (first 15 minutes after the opening statements was rough, but he really rebounded well afterwards) Martin O'Malley: C+ (He looked greazy, but he was the only person from the bottom echelon to really do anything) Jim Webb: C- (He answered relatively well on foreign policy, excluding his opposition to the Iran Deal, but other than that he had nothing) Lincoln Chafee: F (by far the worst debate performance I've ever seen. The only press he is going to get will revolve around the fact that he's an idiot who doesn't read bills he votes on) OVERALL: I believe it was a generally a tie between Bernie Sanders and Clinton. While it probably won't put Bernie over the hump, he clearly broadcasted his message to a much more diverse fan base; I will be interested to see how subsequent polling plays out. If anything, I might give a slight advantage to Bernie because of the exposure aspect-- and that he didn't come across as an old loon that you could just ignore. | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23232 Posts
On October 14 2015 14:25 ragz_gt wrote: The story sounds totally fake and lame. Is the focus group like the focus group in Chevy commercial? Here's the video @2:45 a (former?) Clinton supporter says basically the same thing I did in my analysis on the email question. I don't think Webb or Chafee will be at the next debate either. lol O'Malley (along with Bernie, "Damn Emails" and Huckabee) is trending over Clinton on facebook | ||
|
Arghmyliver
United States1077 Posts
On October 14 2015 13:15 LuckyFool wrote: Can we just hand Hillary the nomination already? None of the other candidates seem to have much interest in actually challenging her and her closest competition DEFENDS her on stage, really? Jim Webb is my man though. Loved almost everything he was saying tonight. I thought that was Sanders' strongest move of the night actually. We don't want a president who is going to be combative with every perceived opponent at every turn. In order to get shit done we need compromise, and for some idiotic reason, compromise is perceived as weakness in the current US political climate. Nothing could be further from the truth. It takes incredible strength of character to be able to negotiate compromise with individuals whose views are greatly different from your own. Sanders' "defense" of Clinton shows that he actually has legitimate opinions which he is willing to stand behind, and that he is not just mindlessly contradicting his opponents. Great debate from Sanders, but more importantly, overall in terms of mutual respect and intellectual conversation this debate was miles ahead of the current clusterfuck that is trying to pass for politics. | ||
|
RenSC2
United States1058 Posts
On October 14 2015 13:46 LuckyFool wrote: admirable, but not exactly how you win in politics. He needs to get people who would otherwise vote for Hillary, voting for him. Issues are important but you're in a race against other people too, something he seems to ignore. Perhaps he thinks that he can get people to vote for him by being admirable? I personally would like to vote for a president that I think is admirable. I think all the sniping and cheap shots are disgusting for someone who wants to be the president of the United States. Someone who is trying to score political points at the loss of his/her own integrity is not someone I'd want to vote for. I missed the debate, but saw the little clip of Sanders defending Clinton in my facebook feed. I've been skeptical of Sanders in the past, but I like him a lot better after seeing that. I may not agree with all of his policies, but I like people with integrity. He showed it. Very few (or none of the) other candidates have shown it. I'd have no problem voting for him in a general election. Unfortunately for him, I won't vote in the primary, but I'd probably pick him over Clinton at this point. | ||
|
IgnE
United States7681 Posts
On October 14 2015 14:23 notesfromunderground wrote: guys, don't you realize that Jim Webb is a completely serious person and actually would make a great president? that's the tragedy of this whole thing. I'm serious! Far better president than Clinton, far better than anything the republicans could muster up. Something like the Democratic Gerald Ford? | ||
|
Grettin
42381 Posts
Thanks | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23232 Posts
On October 14 2015 15:57 Grettin wrote: Would appreciate a VOD of the debate, if anyone has one! Thanks They missed a bit of the opening remarks but you aren't missing anything. | ||
|
RenSC2
United States1058 Posts
On October 13 2015 02:40 xDaunt wrote: The degree to which Obama has been out-maneuvered in the Middle East is hilariously bad. I certainly get that the American people have no desire for continued active participation in the wars over there, but Obama's nearly complete abdication of American authority in the Middle East was reckless and has been disastrous. It's the sort of error that America will be paying for long after Obama leaves office. I really wonder about that. Your reaction to Obama's policies remind me of Eisenhower and the space race. When the Soviets launched Sputnik and it traveled around the world, the American public freaked out. There was a feeling that we were being out-maneuvered by the Soviets and we needed to force them not to launch any more satellites or at least not allow those satellites to fly above our country. Instead, Eisenhower accepted Sputnik and helped create a precedent that satellites could fly over any country. Meanwhile he built up the US's science and technology and launched our own spy satellites that would eventually help keep tabs on the USSR. (you can read a bit about in in the "Impact" section of Sputnik_1 on wikipedia). The American public thought that Eisenhower was twiddling his thumbs, but really, he was two steps ahead of the American public and was helping create a safer world. Likewise, I think Obama's maneuvers in the Middle East are leading towards a safer United States (although Europe may suffer). We are pulling out and passing off more of the responsibility to Europe (refugees) and Russia (military action). We're letting factions that hate us (Assad and ISIS) kill each other in Syria. We're letting Russia bomb the ISIS side which was gaining ground and helping reset that war back to even so that the two parties can continue to kill each other. And for the most part, we're keeping our own hands clean. I'd much prefer if we kept our hands completely clean on Syria. The 1/2 billion dollar program on training rebels was stupid, but appears to be coming to an end. On Iran, we went from a failing policy to a policy with potential. Iran was headed towards a nuke despite all our sanctions. Now, we have an international deal with Iran that doesn't require US military might to hold in place. It's a plan that brings Iran back into the international community, but threatens to kick them out again if they pursue a nuke. Oh, and we have a rabid dog on a leash (Israel) standing right in front of Iran to keep them on their best behavior. By pulling out, we've got all the factions in the middle east finding new targets to point at. ISIS still threatens to destroy America, but now adds Russia to the list. How long before America's name drops off their threats? Israel is annoyed with us right now, but still knows that when push comes to shove, the US will be there to help them if they need it. However, in truth, all we need to do is stop holding them back and they can get the job done. Essentially, pulling out also removes the leash. Meanwhile, at home, we're becoming less and less dependent on foreign oil. The clean energy revolution is great for the environment, but even better for getting us out of the middle east. We're at a point where our own oil producers want to export oil (which is terrible for the US strategically). If we could keep them from exporting, we might be able to completely wean ourselves off of any middle east reliance. So yeah, the United States pulling out of the middle east may result in a massive amount of fighting in the middle east. However, for once, it won't be us paying for it. And then, perhaps after the wars reach horrific proportions, then we can step in and calm things down and people in the middle east will learn that we were never the enemy. Overall, it seems like very good policy for the US, but not so good for the middle eastern countries. | ||
|
On_Slaught
United States12190 Posts
| ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23232 Posts
On October 14 2015 16:27 On_Slaught wrote: Is who is trending more really an important factor? Perhaps thr reason hillary is trending less is because she already had like 100% name recognition and this was a rare national showcase for Sanders? Yes and no. Hillary should be trending with a huge base and what's being reported as a win by many major outlets. However, it wouldn't actually be very significant for her, as she has nearly universal recognition. Everyone out trending her is not a good sign. Sanders trending and the email bit show that the reaction from social media and the internet at large is drastically different than what people are being fed from the corporate media. Of course millions of eyeballs across the country are seeing him and his name for the first time practically and starting to look into him. Every piece of evidence available suggests the more people learn about Sanders the better his numbers get. + Show Spoiler + ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/aS7baGI.png) | ||
|
Silvanel
Poland4729 Posts
| ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23232 Posts
On October 14 2015 16:55 Silvanel wrote: Is Sanders recognition really that low? He is long time Santor, was recently on late show with Colbert. And his rallies are getting a lot of people and press. I thought that by now (even before the debate) he should have nationwide recognition. 38% nationally said they "don't know enough" to rate him favorably or unfavorably. Source | ||
|
WhiteDog
France8650 Posts
That's basically how journalists pick the winner in such debate, they pick the one they are closer to, and since most of the media are closer to Hillary, they're all on Hillary (at least in French medias, because we love to talk about the US). | ||
|
imBLIND
United States2626 Posts
On October 14 2015 16:55 Silvanel wrote: Is Sanders recognition really that low? He is long time Santor, was recently on late show with Colbert. And his rallies are getting a lot of people and press. I thought that by now (even before the debate) he should have nationwide recognition. Most Americans are very uninformed about politics,. If you were to ask 10 random people on the street who the two senators are for their respective state, maybe 4 of them would know at least one of their names. I never heard about Bernie Sanders until one of his speeches popped up on my Facebook. I am very happy to see that Bernie is getting more publicity and that people are actually considering between voting for him and Hilary in the primaries rather than just waiting til the general elections between the Democrats and the Republicans. | ||
|
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
ok maybe not but he's not as bad as he looked only uncertainty with webb is that he's not too good at taking advice. would be a better majority legislator than president really. | ||
|
blobrus
4297 Posts
On October 14 2015 13:38 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: So who do you think "won" the debate? Did Bernie make himself known enough? Did Hillary manage to not combust? Did anyone else make even the slightest ripple in terms of viability? Hillary (as much as I dislike mainstream media trying to portray that she dominated the debate) probably won. She started off really strong compared to Sanders, though towards the end of the debate I feel she fell off while Sanders gained steam. It certainly wasn't the landslide like some hilariously biased places like CNN's website are trying to make it out to be but it's pretty obvious she's the most practiced debater of the bunch. The other candidates didn't particularly stand out, other than the fact that Chafee was hilariously bad. Debate as a whole was decent, much better than the buffoon cage fight that is the republican race. Real winner of the debate was Anderson Cooper, he had some hard hitting questions. | ||
|
LuckyFool
United States9015 Posts
On October 14 2015 15:21 RenSC2 wrote: Perhaps he thinks that he can get people to vote for him by being admirable? I personally would like to vote for a president that I think is admirable. I think all the sniping and cheap shots are disgusting for someone who wants to be the president of the United States. Someone who is trying to score political points at the loss of his/her own integrity is not someone I'd want to vote for. I missed the debate, but saw the little clip of Sanders defending Clinton in my facebook feed. I've been skeptical of Sanders in the past, but I like him a lot better after seeing that. I may not agree with all of his policies, but I like people with integrity. He showed it. Very few (or none of the) other candidates have shown it. I'd have no problem voting for him in a general election. Unfortunately for him, I won't vote in the primary, but I'd probably pick him over Clinton at this point. That's not going to be good enough. He needs to turn Hillary voters into Sanders voters if he wants to actually win. How exactly does he hope to do that by refusing to push her on anything and actually coming to her defense on a possible issue that might hurt her (no matter how trivial he might think it is) Hillary on the other hand used every opportunity to distance herself from Sanders, pressing him on guns etc. | ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands21687 Posts
On October 14 2015 23:12 LuckyFool wrote: That's not going to be good enough. He needs to turn Hillary voters into Sanders voters if he wants to actually win. How exactly does he hope to do that by refusing to push her on anything and actually coming to her defense on a possible issue that might hurt her (no matter how trivial he might think it is) Hillary on the other hand used every opportunity to distance herself from Sanders, pressing him on guns etc. Your failing to understand Bernie. He is not the person to compromise his character to gain the presidency. He wants to win because of his message, not because he was the best at throwing dirt. He wants the election to be about substance, not feelings. Does that make it less likely he will win? Probably, but the fact that he isn't willing to resort to mud slinging carries its own message. | ||
|
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
it'll be rekt in congress and even if passed sky high tax rates and more polarization isn't going to solve any problems. | ||
| ||
StarCraft 2 StarCraft: Brood War Stormgate Dota 2 League of Legends Counter-Strike Super Smash Bros Heroes of the Storm Other Games |
|
PiGosaur Monday
WardiTV Summer Champion…
Stormgate Nexus
uThermal 2v2 Circuit
The PondCast
WardiTV Summer Champion…
Replay Cast
LiuLi Cup
uThermal 2v2 Circuit
RSL Revival
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
