EPTUS Politics Mega-thread - Page 5217
| 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. | ||
|
Doodsmack
United States7224 Posts
| ||
|
darthfoley
United States8004 Posts
He threw a soft ball up for her re her stamina, and she knocked it out of the park with the best extended line by far about how she has already proven her stamina. Also thought her lines about his disrespect for women landed really well (I usually think they're forced), as well as her line about preparing for the debate and she's prepared to be president. Trump was stronger early when he was bashing her as being a typical politician "all words, no action," but she really got him off message and pissy when she attacked him personally (dad's loan, tax returns, etc.) After a week or two of really bad poll numbers, I think this is what Clinton needed. It wasn't a knock out blow by any means, but the narrative for the next few days will likely be that Trump is on the defensive. All the semi-scientific polling (CNN ORC/ Frank Luntz) have put it as a huge win for HRC: by 35% in the CNN poll, 16-6 in Frank Luntz's focus group. Will be interesting to read the polling in the next couple weeks. Bias: I voted for Bernie Sanders in the Dem primary very enthusiastically; I plan on voting for Clinton in November, moreso out of civic duty than excitement, and I haven't donated any money or time to the campaign | ||
|
TheYango
United States47024 Posts
On September 27 2016 14:23 FiWiFaKi wrote: From where I'm standing, this should be in the bag, even though ideologically, I agree with a lot on Trump. Not sure what the 2nd and 3rd debate can do, since I think with proper preparation and good points, he could easily run circles around Hillary, after seeing what she brought, but that's just me. It's a two way street though. He might come more prepared to debate, but she's also less likely to get flustered by him the second time around too. He can't use the same zingers three times and expect them to get the same response the second and third time. Clinton basically has to have some new scandal(s) pop up between now and the next debate for him to have something to work with. | ||
|
Doodsmack
United States7224 Posts
| ||
|
oBlade
United States5822 Posts
Clinton seemed aloof or something at times, loopy. With the wax museum smile and trying to laugh things off. And the retort about stamina left me scratching my head. "She lacks the stamina," "That's not true, I was questioned for 11 hours about Benghazi!" | ||
|
{ToT}ColmA
Japan3260 Posts
| ||
|
DickMcFanny
Ireland1076 Posts
On September 27 2016 15:54 {ToT}ColmA wrote: as i am not an american who has to vote for either of those two..i am glad. i feel sorry for you guys out there. i can not come to terms that those two are in vote for presidency. what happend america Yeah, I'm just glad that the influence of the POTUS ends at the US' borders! | ||
|
NukeD
Croatia1612 Posts
| ||
|
Grumbels
Netherlands7031 Posts
On September 27 2016 15:54 {ToT}ColmA wrote: as i am not an american who has to vote for either of those two..i am glad. i feel sorry for you guys out there. i can not come to terms that those two are in vote for presidency. what happend america Hillary Clinton is maybe not charismatic, but you can make a case that she is the most qualified, most honest and most transparent candidate in recent history. Obama and Sanders endorsed her, she has the full support of the democratic party. Hatred of HRC is 95% a consequence of right-wing smear campaigns and various types of sexist undercurrents in America. Viewed objectively she is a normal candidate, a normal politician, better than most and with many accomplishments throughout her life, plus the bonus factor of being potentially the first female president. Trump is an unabashedly sexist and racist cretin, literally a threat to world civilization. His ascendency is a total disgrace. Please don't equate these two in any way. . | ||
|
NukeD
Croatia1612 Posts
On September 27 2016 16:36 Grumbels wrote: Hillary Clinton is maybe not charismatic, but you can make a case that she is the most qualified, most honest and most transparent candidate in recent history. Obama and Sanders endorsed her, she has the full support of the democratic party. Hatred of HRC is 95% a consequence of right-wing smear campaigns and various types of sexist undercurrents in America. Viewed objectively she is a normal candidate, a normal politician, better than most and with many accomplishments throughout her life, plus the bonus factor of being potentially the first female president. Trump is an unabashedly sexist and racist cretin, literally a threat to world civilization. His ascendency is a total disgrace. Please don't equate these two in any way. . Thats a fairly biased post. No, shes not most quallified, most honest (LOL r u kidding?) and most transparent (seriously??) candidate in recent history. Calling it all a right wing smear is realy really dishonest. I wonder would you write that post if there was anyone else on the other side other than Trump. | ||
|
MWY
Germany284 Posts
On September 27 2016 16:36 Grumbels wrote: Hillary Clinton is maybe not charismatic, but you can make a case that she is the most qualified, most honest and most transparent candidate in recent history. Obama and Sanders endorsed her, she has the full support of the democratic party. Hatred of HRC is 95% a consequence of right-wing smear campaigns and various types of sexist undercurrents in America. Viewed objectively she is a normal candidate, a normal politician, better than most and with many accomplishments throughout her life, plus the bonus factor of being potentially the first female president. Trump is an unabashedly sexist and racist cretin, literally a threat to world civilization. His ascendency is a total disgrace. Please don't equate these two in any way. . Wow. While the path America will take under HRC will be way better than under Trump (except 1-2 little aspects maybe) calling her honest and transparent is really, really biased. She flipflops on issues almost as bad as Trump (although her points of view are not as bad as his), gets money from the top, lied on several occasions, her foundation is proven corrupt and nobody can say that the left-ish course she currently speaks of will really happen. She most likely adapted a good amount of points to keep bernie sanders on board, who in no way supports her willingly. It's most likely so he can push her course a bit more in a progressive direction, to better bring his movement into the democratic party and to prevent Trump. | ||
|
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
| ||
|
Aquanim
Australia2849 Posts
On September 27 2016 17:14 MWY wrote:... her foundation is proven corrupt... Proven by whom? That got discussed in this thread a while back and I don't recall being convinced. Source? | ||
|
DickMcFanny
Ireland1076 Posts
On September 27 2016 16:36 Grumbels wrote: Hillary Clinton is maybe not charismatic, but you can make a case that she is the most qualified, most honest and most transparent candidate in recent history. Obama and Sanders endorsed her, she has the full support of the democratic party. Hatred of HRC is 95% a consequence of right-wing smear campaigns and various types of sexist undercurrents in America. Viewed objectively she is a normal candidate, a normal politician, better than most and with many accomplishments throughout her life, plus the bonus factor of being potentially the first female president. Trump is an unabashedly sexist and racist cretin, literally a threat to world civilization. His ascendency is a total disgrace. Please don't equate these two in any way. . Gotta love this holier-than-though attitude. People like you are just as much to blame for Trump as right wing white supremacists are. "Sexist undercurrent" and "right wing smear", you have to be joking. There's a lot of objectionable shit about Hillary and the Clinton foundation, lots of reasonable concerns that she's just bullshitting. | ||
|
Grumbels
Netherlands7031 Posts
On September 27 2016 17:14 MWY wrote: Wow. While the path America will take under HRC will be way better than under Trump (except 1-2 little aspects maybe) calling her honest and transparent is really, really biased. She flipflops on issues almost as bad as Trump (although her points of view are not as bad as his), gets money from the top, lied on several occasions, her foundation is proven corrupt and nobody can say that the left-ish course she currently speaks of will really happen. She most likely adapted a good amount of points to keep bernie sanders on board, who in no way supports her willingly. It's most likely so he can push her course a bit more in a progressive direction, to better bring his movement into the democratic party and to prevent Trump. Hillary Clinton, within the context of the democratic party, is progressive and has been so consistently over the years. (link) Hillary Clinton, relative to other candidates, is honest. (link) Hillary Clinton certainly is qualified, this is the case that Obama specifically made. (link) She gets money from the top because she is a politician, every other politician gets funding from wealthy donors. Do you want her to refuse the money? Clinton does have at least a promise to do something about the problem of money in politics. John Oliver did a piece about the Foundation and Email scandals which shows there is nothing there which should disqualify her. And she did release her health records and tax returns. There is nothing about Hillary Clinton which is a secret, only right-wing insinuations that she is hiding something. (is Hillary a robot from other space??) I know they're not the best links, but I don't have a repository of articles on hand, so I just googled these. What people think they know about Hillary Clinton tends to be far from the truth, at any rate. (example for the foundation) | ||
|
Grumbels
Netherlands7031 Posts
On September 27 2016 17:32 DickMcFanny wrote: Gotta love this holier-than-though attitude. People like you are just as much to blame for Trump as right wing white supremacists are. "Sexist undercurrent" and "right wing smear", you have to be joking. There's a lot of objectionable shit about Hillary and the Clinton foundation, lots of reasonable concerns that she's just bullshitting. Please read this article which demonstrates what everyone already knows: people support the far right because they are racists and because they feel loss of status compared to minorities (see the whining about political correctness). It's not because of the left alienating people, it's because mainstream politicians can not abandon commitment to tolerance and modern governance to cater to white nationalists. And since no good deed goes unpunished they get called out of touch because of it. By the way, I don't know what you tried to imply, but sexism does exist in the USA and affects how people perceive Clinton. For instance, female authority is rejected. (example) And there is a long history of right wing smears against Clinton. (some examples here) | ||
|
Shingi11
290 Posts
| ||
|
zeo
Serbia6334 Posts
All in all Clinton has no chance against a non-biased moderator. Looking forward to the next debates. edit: Not to mention Clinton wearing that earpiece. | ||
|
Ghostcom
Denmark4783 Posts
On September 27 2016 17:48 Grumbels wrote: Please read this article which demonstrates what everyone already knows: people support the far right because they are racists and because they feel loss of status compared to minorities (see the whining about political correctness). It's not because of the left alienating people, it's because mainstream politicians can not abandon commitment to tolerance and modern governance to cater to white nationalists. And since no good deed goes unpunished they get called out of touch because of it. By the way, I don't know what you tried to imply, but sexism does exist in the USA and affects how people perceive Clinton. For instance, female authority is rejected. (example) And there is a long history of right wing smears against Clinton. (some examples here) I might be misunderstanding you here: Are you implying that all of Trumps supporters are racists? | ||
|
bo1b
Australia12814 Posts
On September 27 2016 17:57 Ghostcom wrote: I might be misunderstanding you here: Are you implying that all of Trumps supporters are racists? The type of person who sugests criticism of Hillary Clinton predominantly comes from a sexist position is indeed likely to imply all of Trump supporters are racists. | ||
| ||
