|
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. |
On September 27 2016 22:18 biology]major wrote:Show nested quote +On September 27 2016 22:11 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On September 27 2016 22:03 biology]major wrote:
Trump sucked, and got baited left and right. I expected him to keep his composure and he failed. I have no doubt the this moderator was in some way influenced or biased as fuck. No question on benghazi, no question on clinton foundation, no question on emails. Meanwhile he asks trump about tax returns, birther movement, and his language against women. In fact lester holt asked hrc only a few direct questions the entire debate. I would have easily given this win to HRC but if the moderator isn't gonna ask questions fundamental to why HRC is considered a untrustworthy human being while asking questions central to why trump is a racist/misogynist then I have no hope for the remaining debates.
Call it whining about the moderator, sure. One candidate got off easy here given how much baggage BOTH of them have. The moderator did ask Hillary a question about her e-mails. You might have missed that because Hillary formally apologized, took the hit like a man woman who knows how to actually own up to her mistakes, and then they moved on. It was Trump's fault for rambling on and on for several minutes at a time with non-answers to his scandal questions. The moderator is a Republican and Trump walked all over him in terms of interrupting non-stop. If the moderator had done his job correctly, Trump would have looked even worse. At least the moderator fact-checked Trump one time (on Trump's Iraq War lie) and held Trump to actually answering one or two questions after the incoherent ramblings. No, if trump didn't bring it up, that question would have never been asked. He simply let her respond to his attacks. All of trumps scandals were directly asked, in a leading manner. Clinton got none of it.
I also hear trump had a bad mic, they must of gave hillary the good one. God the poor guy just cant catch a break.
That Republican moderator was just so unfair. I think next time it is only fair if the let an unbiased soul like Reince Priebus lead the debate.
|
On September 27 2016 22:03 biology]major wrote:
Trump sucked, and got baited left and right. I expected him to keep his composure and he failed. I have no doubt the this moderator was in some way influenced or biased as fuck. No question on benghazi, no question on clinton foundation, no question on emails. Meanwhile he asks trump about tax returns, birther movement, and his language against women. In fact lester holt asked hrc only a few direct questions the entire debate. I would have easily given this win to HRC but if the moderator isn't gonna ask questions fundamental to why HRC is considered a untrustworthy human being while asking questions central to why trump is a racist/misogynist then I have no hope for the remaining debates.
Call it whining about the moderator, sure. One candidate got off easy here given how much baggage BOTH of them have.
Benghazi has been exhaustively discussed. As she brought up, there was also an 11 hour hearing on the topic for anyone who wants to know. She addressed her emails. It has been discussed to no end. There was really just not that much left to say. Comey already ended it.
There's been some recent email stuff, so I could see justification for more email questions. But Benghazi is downright illegitimate. There's nothing to ask there.
EDIT: I think what you *are* seeing is both candidates being held to the same standards. Tax returns are a huge deal and have always been a huge deal. A candidate suddenly refusing is really big and would be considered a huge deal for any other candidate. Same with doubting Obama's citizenship. I think you aren't paying respect to how notably different Trump manages to be with respect to those two topics. Sure, he's a crazy idiot, so it makes it unsurprising he is crazy about Obama and taxes. But he is still a presidential candidate and needed to be treated like a potential PRESIDENT. Asking him to justify his ridiculous positions is not unreasonable. They are very unreasonable by any objective measurement.
|
Oh god, only had listened the economy segment, and hillary has been all fluff since she has pretty much zero credibility on that kind of stuff. Hopefully it gets better.
|
Debates are all fluff, you're looking for something that isn't there.
|
On September 27 2016 22:28 farvacola wrote:
Debates are all fluff, you're looking for something that isn't there. Wrong word then i guess. A pushover would had been more accurate ?
Edit - How can people listen to Trump for more than 5 minutes on his rallies ? Honest question. If there was a drinking game, i would had been wasted on his first five sentences.
|
On September 27 2016 22:24 Aquanim wrote:
Not all scandals are born equal. Is there anything new that could be said about Benghazi at all?
Very true. If it hadn't taken Trump five years to admit that Obama was born in America (up to 1-2 weeks ago), he could have just said that his accusation has long since been corrected, it's dead and buried, and moved on. He's the one who drags out his own scandals, keeping them as current events which hurt him.
|
On September 27 2016 22:30 Godwrath wrote:Show nested quote +On September 27 2016 22:28 farvacola wrote:
Debates are all fluff, you're looking for something that isn't there. Wrong word then i guess. A pushover would had been more accurate ? Edit - How can people listen to Trump for more than 5 minutes on his rallies ? Honest question. If there was a drinking game, i would had been wasted on his first five sentences.
That makes more sense, most folks consider the first 10 minutes Trump's strongest part of the debate.
|
On September 27 2016 22:28 Godwrath wrote:
Oh god, only had listened the economy segment, and hillary has been all fluff since she has pretty much zero credibility on that kind of stuff. Hopefully it gets better.
Well Trump smugly said that our economic collapse was just the price of business. lol.
|
Are there any numbers out on how many watched the debate?
|
I'd give Holt a B on his moderating. He was definitely nervous at the outset. While I'd prefer a moderator with a pretty iron fist who cuts mic's and factchecks, I know that's not realistic because neither candidate would agree to it. That said, he did a solid job moving the discussion along and keeping the candidates on topic.
Clinton gets an A-. There were a few zingers from Trump that she didn't have a comeback to immediately, and I wish she'd talked a little more policy. However overall she baited the living daylights out of Trump and I don't think she had any real bad moments that people will fixate on.
Trump gets a D. As Obama said, the presidency isn't graded on a curve. Dude had maybe 5 minutes during which he was coherent. He got tossed some softballs and missed. Holt gave him chances to dig himself out, and Trump decided to dig himself deeper. And the lying and blatant denial. Worst of all, there's plenty of material that will be played for the next few media cycles (eh, probably just one).
|
On September 27 2016 22:18 biology]major wrote:Show nested quote +On September 27 2016 22:11 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On September 27 2016 22:03 biology]major wrote:
Trump sucked, and got baited left and right. I expected him to keep his composure and he failed. I have no doubt the this moderator was in some way influenced or biased as fuck. No question on benghazi, no question on clinton foundation, no question on emails. Meanwhile he asks trump about tax returns, birther movement, and his language against women. In fact lester holt asked hrc only a few direct questions the entire debate. I would have easily given this win to HRC but if the moderator isn't gonna ask questions fundamental to why HRC is considered a untrustworthy human being while asking questions central to why trump is a racist/misogynist then I have no hope for the remaining debates.
Call it whining about the moderator, sure. One candidate got off easy here given how much baggage BOTH of them have. The moderator did ask Hillary a question about her e-mails. You might have missed that because Hillary formally apologized, took the hit like a man woman who knows how to actually own up to her mistakes, and then they moved on. It was Trump's fault for rambling on and on for several minutes at a time with non-answers to his scandal questions. The moderator is a Republican and Trump walked all over him in terms of interrupting non-stop. If the moderator had done his job correctly, Trump would have looked even worse. At least the moderator fact-checked Trump one time (on Trump's Iraq War lie) and held Trump to actually answering one or two questions after the incoherent ramblings. No, if trump didn't bring it up, that question would have never been asked. He simply let her respond to his attacks. All of trumps scandals were directly asked, in a leading manner. Clinton got none of it.
You don't know this. It's entirely reasonable that he had a list of questions and that if they came up before he got to them he would move on.
Don't blame him for Trump being too stupid to bring up Benghazi during the Libya section and the emails during the cyber security one.
|
On September 27 2016 22:45 On_Slaught wrote:Show nested quote +On September 27 2016 22:18 biology]major wrote:On September 27 2016 22:11 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On September 27 2016 22:03 biology]major wrote:
Trump sucked, and got baited left and right. I expected him to keep his composure and he failed. I have no doubt the this moderator was in some way influenced or biased as fuck. No question on benghazi, no question on clinton foundation, no question on emails. Meanwhile he asks trump about tax returns, birther movement, and his language against women. In fact lester holt asked hrc only a few direct questions the entire debate. I would have easily given this win to HRC but if the moderator isn't gonna ask questions fundamental to why HRC is considered a untrustworthy human being while asking questions central to why trump is a racist/misogynist then I have no hope for the remaining debates.
Call it whining about the moderator, sure. One candidate got off easy here given how much baggage BOTH of them have. The moderator did ask Hillary a question about her e-mails. You might have missed that because Hillary formally apologized, took the hit like a man woman who knows how to actually own up to her mistakes, and then they moved on. It was Trump's fault for rambling on and on for several minutes at a time with non-answers to his scandal questions. The moderator is a Republican and Trump walked all over him in terms of interrupting non-stop. If the moderator had done his job correctly, Trump would have looked even worse. At least the moderator fact-checked Trump one time (on Trump's Iraq War lie) and held Trump to actually answering one or two questions after the incoherent ramblings. No, if trump didn't bring it up, that question would have never been asked. He simply let her respond to his attacks. All of trumps scandals were directly asked, in a leading manner. Clinton got none of it. You don't know this. It's entirely reasonable that he had a list of questions and that if they came up before he got to them he would move on. Don't blame him for Trump being too stupid to bring up Benghazi during the Libya section and the emails during the cyber security one.
For some reason I actually think that was calculated, he was the one that brought up Libya in the discussion with some snarky remark, I think he was hoping she would instantly get defensive on Benghazi. This way he doesn't bring it up himself and look like he's beating a dead horse, but he also gets her talking about it. Obviously speculation on my part, but that felt like a moment where he was hoping for more.
|
Yeah re: Benghazi and emails Holt let Trump get to third base and set him up to score a run... and somehow Trump wandered off the field.
|
United States43219 Posts
On September 27 2016 19:02 TheDwf wrote:
57 pages since I left, not bad... Is there some summary of the debate somewhere?
Hillary said Trump didn't pay taxes, Trump said that he was glad he didn't pay any taxes because the government would squander it.
The moderator asked Trump about his support of the Iraq war from an interview in 2002. Trump denied the interview. They got into an argument and Trump kept telling the moderator to call up Sean Hannity and ask him because Trump told Sean he was against the war in Iraq before the war in Iraq even happened. He spent his entire time allotted for the answer trying to convince the moderator that his eyes were lying and that if he would only call Sean Hannity then he could learn what really happened. The moderator did not call Sean Hannity.
Oh, Trump said that his lawyers told him he shouldn't release his tax returns.
He mentioned emails once and superpredators once but didn't actually build anything on them. He just said them in the same way The Big Bang Theory references nerd culture. You say a word, hope that some retarded fans go "ooooh, I know what that is" and laugh and use that instead of having actual content.
When accused of not paying his employees he didn't contest it but said that sometimes they do bad work which, even if they do, isn't going to sound good coming from a billionaire refusing to pay workers.
When accused of saying sexist things he said that some of the women had it coming.
When accused of being sued for racial discrimination in housing he said that it was the 80s and a lot of companies were sued at the same time so everyone was doing it and anyway, he settled without admitting fault.
A few other questions he just refused to answer because he distracted himself and went off on a tangent.
When asked about cyberwarfare he kept saying how important he thinks cyber is and then went into an anecdote about how good his 10 year old son is at cyber.
When asked about America's enemies regarding cyberwarfare he speculated that because it's online nobody knows if hacks are coming from Russia, China or a 400 lb man in bed so why worry.
He went on a very long rant about the nuclear which seemed a lot like he thought "the nuclear" meant nuclear weapons. It was pretty surreal.
He said he'd roll out stop and frisk, the moderator said that it was found unconstitutional and Trump said "no it wasn't", the moderator said "yes it was" and Trump said "no because the judge who found it unconstitutional was actually a super against police judge anyway and they would have had an appeal and they would have won on appeal but they stopped the policy anyway after the first judge ruled it unconstitutional so they didn't bother making the appeal, even though they would have won, so basically it's not unconstitutional", moderator "it was found unconstitutional".
When accused of being racist he explained that he actually had a property that lets the blacks and the hispanics play, even though it's a really nice property.
I'd explain what Hillary did but mostly what she did was just looking good in comparison because who the fuck needs to actually debate when the opponent is doing that. It was a freewin.
|
On September 27 2016 18:22 Ghostcom wrote:Show nested quote +On September 27 2016 18:05 Grumbels wrote:On September 27 2016 17:57 Ghostcom wrote:On September 27 2016 17:48 Grumbels wrote:On September 27 2016 17:32 DickMcFanny wrote:On September 27 2016 16:36 Grumbels wrote: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. . 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) I might be misunderstanding you here: Are you implying that all of Trumps supporters are racists? Being racist correlates to supporting Trump and supporting the European populist parties. You can draw your own conclusions, but in my view Clinton wasn't wrong when she called half of Trump supporters "deplorable". I'm specifically asking you to expand on your statements because I don't want to jump to conclusions... Now you are stating that being racist (assumption: being racists towards non-whites) correlates to supporting Trump - which is likely true. However, I hope you can see the difference between this, and claiming that everyone who supports Trump are racist (which the initial post I responded to implied). So perhaps you can understand my confusion here?
I don't see how Grumbels' initial post implied that every Trump supporter was racist. I don't think anyone believes that. I regularly see people in this thread confuse the statement "racists tend to vote for Donald Trump" with "Donald Trump supporters are all racists". It's a basic misunderstanding of the argument being made. As for sources for Grumbels' position, see here and see here for two studies pointing towards racial resentment being a strong indicator of support of Trump.
|
Right wing talk radio is a hell of a thing. Caller asks who won the debate, they cite the Drudge report poll saying it was 82-17 Trump.
|
On September 27 2016 22:20 Plansix wrote:
There was a solid 5 minute stretch when Drumpf just rambled and whined about how no one called Hannity. Like 5 minutes of stream of conscious non-sense and even the best reporters are having a tough time reporting on.
Bro, I got you...
On September 27 2016 11:27 Rebs wrote:If anyone wants to call Sean Hannity.. ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/eFr4c6r.png)
Honestly if Obama had been in there he would have murdered Drumpf, there were so many oppurtunities to take small jabs and quips, after he would get done speaking and move on to your point.Drumpf would have interrupted even more and probably gotten baited harder.
It was a very safety first approach that relied on Drumpf fucking up. And while I would have preferred she go for the kill, thats not her strong suit so she stuck the script, released the clearly premeditated zingers she was going to get a chance to off on him and watch him unravel.
Im just sad she didnt needle him a bit more, the memes would have been glorious...
|
I think even when she has a good line (like her response to stamina) she just doesn't have the charisma to make it a mic drop moment like Obama does.
|
On September 27 2016 23:06 Nevuk wrote:
Right wing talk radio is a hell of a thing. Caller asks who won the debate, they cite the Drudge report poll saying it was 82-17 Trump.
Trumples are doing it on twitter too. It's cute how they're so desperate to pat themselves on the back.
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/vxZsWLt.png)
Have a 1 stop shop post to brigade all the internet polls on our circlejerk subreddit then marvel at our ability to click a button. We sure did good guys!
|
On September 27 2016 22:55 Trainrunnef wrote:Show nested quote +On September 27 2016 22:45 On_Slaught wrote:On September 27 2016 22:18 biology]major wrote:On September 27 2016 22:11 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On September 27 2016 22:03 biology]major wrote:
Trump sucked, and got baited left and right. I expected him to keep his composure and he failed. I have no doubt the this moderator was in some way influenced or biased as fuck. No question on benghazi, no question on clinton foundation, no question on emails. Meanwhile he asks trump about tax returns, birther movement, and his language against women. In fact lester holt asked hrc only a few direct questions the entire debate. I would have easily given this win to HRC but if the moderator isn't gonna ask questions fundamental to why HRC is considered a untrustworthy human being while asking questions central to why trump is a racist/misogynist then I have no hope for the remaining debates.
Call it whining about the moderator, sure. One candidate got off easy here given how much baggage BOTH of them have. The moderator did ask Hillary a question about her e-mails. You might have missed that because Hillary formally apologized, took the hit like a man woman who knows how to actually own up to her mistakes, and then they moved on. It was Trump's fault for rambling on and on for several minutes at a time with non-answers to his scandal questions. The moderator is a Republican and Trump walked all over him in terms of interrupting non-stop. If the moderator had done his job correctly, Trump would have looked even worse. At least the moderator fact-checked Trump one time (on Trump's Iraq War lie) and held Trump to actually answering one or two questions after the incoherent ramblings. No, if trump didn't bring it up, that question would have never been asked. He simply let her respond to his attacks. All of trumps scandals were directly asked, in a leading manner. Clinton got none of it. You don't know this. It's entirely reasonable that he had a list of questions and that if they came up before he got to them he would move on. Don't blame him for Trump being too stupid to bring up Benghazi during the Libya section and the emails during the cyber security one. For some reason I actually think that was calculated, he was the one that brought up Libya in the discussion with some snarky remark, I think he was hoping she would instantly get defensive on Benghazi. This way he doesn't bring it up himself and look like he's beating a dead horse, but he also gets her talking about it. Obviously speculation on my part, but that felt like a moment where he was hoping for more.
Trump can't/won't hammer Clinton on Libya (even when she brought it up) because he was in favor of going into it and he literally cannot believe he was incorrect about something, it's functionally impossible for him. That's why he desperately said to call Hannity (it's as much for him as the public) and is insistent there were indeed NJ celebrations after 9/11.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
