|
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. |
United States41989 Posts
On September 27 2016 13:22 Danglars wrote:
All three sucked, including the moderator.
Trump big first half but man did he fall hard. And so many missed opportunities. Like fucking lay-ups.
In the race segment he says "superpredators" and then is about to challenge her to apologize for saying that about African Americans and then completely loses the plot and never goes back to it. Happened a few times. He reaches for his gotcha material and then falters and drifts off. Choked I guess.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On September 27 2016 13:18 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On September 27 2016 13:16 LegalLord wrote:On September 27 2016 13:14 KwarK wrote:When Trump says My lawyers have advised me not to release my tax returns what do we think we should conclude from that? Because that sounds like a lot more than just looking bad. I just took it as garden variety trump bluster. If someone says to you "you can't check my internet search history" I'm thinking weird porn. If someone says "my lawyers have advised me to not allow you to check my internet search history" I'm thinking child porn. It's not a good phrase.
If a braggart says "I'll do it even though my lawyers told me not to" I'd just assume he's being a braggart. I honestly doubt his lawyers said a damn thing in this matter.
|
Jeeze if he wants to back out of the bet just let him. I'm sure you don't need the 50 bucks.
Anyway, I'm sure no one was under any illusion that the judge of the apprentice was going to have any ability to debate someone that has (a) gone for marathon congressional hearings and (b) has actually had experience debating presidential candidates one on one.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
I just remembered a line from Hillary that I thought was really good, but no one brought up at all: "Sit in a Senate Committee for 13 hours and then talk to me about stamina."
|
United States41989 Posts
On September 27 2016 13:27 LegalLord wrote:
I just remembered a line from Hillary that I thought was really good, but no one brought up at all: "Sit in a Senate Committee for 13 hours and then talk to me about stamina."
Wasn't a fan, to me it evoked her marathon testimonies at the various inquisitions having to defend herself for hours on end.
|
On September 27 2016 13:19 FiWiFaKi wrote:Show nested quote +On September 27 2016 13:11 kwizach wrote:
FiWiKaKi, you're deliberately not including the time stamps of those messages. You messaged me to declare the bet was off after the debate and after we had both agreed to the terms of the bet -- two hours and twenty minutes after I sent you my agreement. Nowhere in the terms did you include a clause saying that the bet was off if no moderator could confirm before the debate that he would ban the loser if he didn't pay up.
We both agreed to the terms of the bet. They are very specific -- because you wrote them. I'm sorry for you that Trump had a terrible debate performance, but you should have expected that to happen going into the bet.
If you want to amend the terms, propose something and I'll let you know if I agree. Feel free to go to PM. + Show Spoiler +The timestamps:
You: 18:04
Me: 18:10
You: 18:18
Me: 18:20
Me: 18:35 (the 15 minutes I was writing the thing up)
You: 19:05 (debate scheduled to start at 19:00 my time, started at 19:02)
Me: 21:25
You: 21:34
Messaging me after the debate started is silly, not only was I watching it and obviously I had no consideration for the bet anymore, so I spent the debate posting silly one liners and watching, and naturally would not reply while it's occurring. You're complaining about the fact that the thing we bet on, the debate, the thing that has the overwhelming chance to affect this election, and you're complaining that I'm not respecting the terms of our agreement, when you agreed while the critical event was in progress.
I have no amends to make, I made my position clear and I think I have a fair argument. Of course I would have followed through and taken the loss if you replied to me 10 minutes beforehand, so I could get the go ahead from Kwark or another mod here, but you did not.
Anyway, I made my positions known, and all the info you need is in the PM's, so no need to continue it here.
+ Show Spoiler +FiWiFaKi, you wrote the terms of the bet yourself. Nowhere in the terms did you include a clause saying that the bet was off if no moderator could confirm before the debate started that he would ban the loser if he didn't pay up. Nowhere in the terms did you include a clause that would void the bet for the reasons you're now putting forward (me accepting at 21:05, before either of the candidate had spoken at their podiums - you can check the time stamps).
When you saw my message of agreement is irrelevant -- the point is that we both agreed to the terms. You could have not connected to TL for a week, discovered my message next week, and it would make no difference.
We both know that you are attempting to void the bet because Trump had a poor debate performance. I stated my agreement to the terms you proposed. If you wanted different terms, you should have proposed different terms, for example about when our respective agreements had to be communicated to moderators. You're trying to use a loophole that doesn't exist to get out.
The bet remains on. If you want to contest, we can take it to website feedback as KwarK mentioned.
edit to reply to Falling below: sorry! I put my comment in spoiler tags to take less room You can reply in PM FiWi, and we'll go to website feedback if you maintain that you are walking out of the bet.
|
Canada11279 Posts
On September 27 2016 13:31 kwizach wrote:Show nested quote +On September 27 2016 13:19 FiWiFaKi wrote:On September 27 2016 13:11 kwizach wrote:
FiWiKaKi, you're deliberately not including the time stamps of those messages. You messaged me to declare the bet was off after the debate and after we had both agreed to the terms of the bet -- two hours and twenty minutes after I sent you my agreement. Nowhere in the terms did you include a clause saying that the bet was off if no moderator could confirm before the debate that he would ban the loser if he didn't pay up.
We both agreed to the terms of the bet. They are very specific -- because you wrote them. I'm sorry for you that Trump had a terrible debate performance, but you should have expected that to happen going into the bet.
If you want to amend the terms, propose something and I'll let you know if I agree. Feel free to go to PM. The timestamps: You: 18:04 Me: 18:10 You: 18:18 Me: 18:20 Me: 18:35 (the 15 minutes I was writing the thing up) You: 19:05 (debate scheduled to start at 19:00 my time, started at 19:02) Me: 21:25 You: 21:34 Messaging me after the debate started is silly, not only was I watching it and obviously I had no consideration for the bet anymore, so I spent the debate posting silly one liners and watching, and naturally would not reply while it's occurring. You're complaining about the fact that the thing we bet on, the debate, the thing that has the overwhelming chance to affect this election, and you're complaining that I'm not respecting the terms of our agreement, when you agreed while the critical event was in progress. I have no amends to make, I made my position clear and I think I have a fair argument. Of course I would have followed through and taken the loss if you replied to me 10 minutes beforehand, so I could get the go ahead from Kwark or another mod here, but you did not. Anyway, I made my positions known, and all the info you need is in the PM's, so no need to continue it here. FiWiFaKi, you wrote the terms of the bet yourself. Nowhere in the terms did you include a clause saying that the bet was off if no moderator could confirm before the debate started that he would ban the loser if he didn't pay up. Nowhere in the terms did you include a clause that would void the bet for the reasons you're now putting forward (me accepting at 21:05, before either of the candidate had spoken at their podiums - you can check the time stamps). When you saw my message of agreement is irrelevant -- the point is that we both agreed to the terms. You could have not connected to TL for a week, discovered my message next week, and it would make no difference. We both know that you are attempting to void the bet because Trump had a poor debate performance. I stated my agreement to the terms you proposed. If you wanted different terms, you should have proposed different terms, for example about when our respective agreements had to be communicated to moderators. The bet remains on.
kwizach. Please resolve this in pms as Kwark requested.
|
Trump may be less comfortable with the subdued audience if he's unhappy with his performance. I'm sure he'd prefer to be able to read and play them.
|
TLADT24920 Posts
On September 27 2016 13:31 kwizach wrote:Show nested quote +On September 27 2016 13:19 FiWiFaKi wrote:On September 27 2016 13:11 kwizach wrote:
FiWiKaKi, you're deliberately not including the time stamps of those messages. You messaged me to declare the bet was off after the debate and after we had both agreed to the terms of the bet -- two hours and twenty minutes after I sent you my agreement. Nowhere in the terms did you include a clause saying that the bet was off if no moderator could confirm before the debate that he would ban the loser if he didn't pay up.
We both agreed to the terms of the bet. They are very specific -- because you wrote them. I'm sorry for you that Trump had a terrible debate performance, but you should have expected that to happen going into the bet.
If you want to amend the terms, propose something and I'll let you know if I agree. Feel free to go to PM. The timestamps: You: 18:04 Me: 18:10 You: 18:18 Me: 18:20 Me: 18:35 (the 15 minutes I was writing the thing up) You: 19:05 (debate scheduled to start at 19:00 my time, started at 19:02) Me: 21:25 You: 21:34 Messaging me after the debate started is silly, not only was I watching it and obviously I had no consideration for the bet anymore, so I spent the debate posting silly one liners and watching, and naturally would not reply while it's occurring. You're complaining about the fact that the thing we bet on, the debate, the thing that has the overwhelming chance to affect this election, and you're complaining that I'm not respecting the terms of our agreement, when you agreed while the critical event was in progress. I have no amends to make, I made my position clear and I think I have a fair argument. Of course I would have followed through and taken the loss if you replied to me 10 minutes beforehand, so I could get the go ahead from Kwark or another mod here, but you did not. Anyway, I made my positions known, and all the info you need is in the PM's, so no need to continue it here. FiWiFaKi, you wrote the terms of the bet yourself. Nowhere in the terms did you include a clause saying that the bet was off if no moderator could confirm before the debate started that he would ban the loser if he didn't pay up. Nowhere in the terms did you include a clause that would void the bet for the reasons you're now putting forward (me accepting at 21:05, before either of the candidate had spoken at their podiums - you can check the time stamps). When you saw my message of agreement is irrelevant -- the point is that we both agreed to the terms. You could have not connected to TL for a week, discovered my message next week, and it would make no difference. We both know that you are attempting to void the bet because Trump had a poor debate performance. I stated my agreement to the terms you proposed. If you wanted different terms, you should have proposed different terms, for example about when our respective agreements had to be communicated to moderators. The bet remains on. If you want to contest, we can take it to website feedback as KwarK mentioned.
lol. Even if you say it's still on, he can just ignore the election outcome and claim it was voided from your past messages. Either way, this is quite entertaining to watch 
|
I just really didn't like how Trump kept cutting the moderator off over and over, like I just felt bad for the guy, what are you supposed to do, you know?
Secondly, I think he was unnecessarily rude to Hillary and the moderator, the "I want us all to be happy" comment at the beginning was very snarky.
I don't like how he denied so many with a that's not true, nope not true, and especially the things that I know Trump said, and everyone obviously knows he's said, so that was a big turn off.
Lastly he was really bad at making cohesive arguments with good punchlines, and kept repeating the same points in all the questions. Did not scream prepared to me at all.
|
On September 27 2016 13:24 FiWiFaKi wrote:Show nested quote +On September 27 2016 13:22 Danglars wrote:
All three sucked, including the moderator.
Trump big first half but man did he fall hard. And so many missed opportunities. Like fucking lay-ups. If you can't hit them, I fear for finishing the campaign well.
Hillary comes out ahead because she recovered and stayed steady. She is ahead in the race and this will stall Trump's momentum in my view, though I can't expect more than ~a point gain.
Who had "Hannity" on their drinking game lol You know, I really am surprised at the reaction I'm seeing... Usually I'm all about the hmm, you're misunderstanding Trump, taking this out of context, but now it's the other way I round. I really can't think of much that Trump could have done to be worse. I actually had to take my headphones off a couple times and say, shit this is embarrassing. I thought from the first moment it was just so weak, while Hillary was super composed and coherent the whole time.
When somebody does a bad job, it's amazing how much agreement you can get from his enemies/ideological opponents.
It was like those footballs teams that have a terrific first half, and just lose track.
|
On September 27 2016 13:34 FiWiFaKi wrote:
I just really didn't like how Trump kept cutting the moderator off over and over, like I just felt bad for the guy, what are you supposed to do, you know?
Secondly, I think he was unnecessarily rude to Hillary and the moderator, the "I want us all to be happy" comment at the beginning was very snarky.
I don't like how he denied so many with a that's not true, nope not true, and especially the things that I know Trump said, and everyone obviously knows he's said, so that was a big turn off.
Lastly he was really bad at making cohesive arguments with good punchlines, and kept repeating the same points in all the questions. Did not scream prepared to me at all.
he was doing fine imo up until the birther/race relation segments
downhill from there
|
|
|
I am so shocked, either Donald Trump must have a botting server doing this for him, or I am closer to Satan, than the average person that supports Donald Trump.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On September 27 2016 13:46 FiWiFaKi wrote:I am so shocked, either Donald Trump must have a botting server doing this for him, or I am closer to Satan, than the average person that supports Donald Trump.
The people who watch debates strongly skew Republican.
|
I don't know why anyone is saying Trump did well in the beginning because that's when he was loudly interrupting Hillary lol.
|
That poll is BS. Nearly million people voted that quickly. Bullshit.
|
There's been some heavy brigarding going on with the polls
|
|
|
On September 27 2016 13:48 Doodsmack wrote:
I don't know why anyone is saying Trump did well in the beginning because that's when he was loudly interrupting Hillary lol.
He didn't for 5 or 10 minutes he was a good boy. Then he just said fuck it yolo bois! and started interrupting Hillary and Lester who did zero about it. But for a brief second he pretended to be a good respectable human being.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
