EPTUS Politics Mega-thread - Page 5223
| 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. | ||
|
LegalLord
United States13779 Posts
| ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On September 27 2016 23:06 Rebs wrote: Bro, I got you... 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... She didn’t need to do anything more than what she did. The man showed he cannot control himself and any voter on the fence isnt’ going to look at that and decide Trump got the better end of that debate. And he did himself no favors is his weakest demographic he has a chance of taking, women. And then he called Miss Universe fat this morning on Fox and Friends. Or as I like to call it, Trump’ Safe Space. | ||
|
DarkPlasmaBall
United States45048 Posts
| ||
|
OuchyDathurts
United States4588 Posts
On September 27 2016 23:14 LegalLord wrote: You know, after thinking about it overnight, I'd have to say that what really went down was that Trump lacked preparation and it showed. There were a good few dozen opportunities in that debate for a high-quality trouncing of Hillary but instead he floundered in a few key moments because he wasn't prepared to make good use of them. I'm not sure preparation is a thing for the man honestly. But they are both lucky they're fighting against each other. If either of them were against virtually anyone else we'd need a meat wagon right now. What the hell does over-prepared for a presidential debate even mean? That's not a thing. | ||
|
Grumbels
Netherlands7031 Posts
On September 27 2016 23:05 kwizach wrote: 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. I think partly the problem is sloppy use of terminology on my part. I'm guilty of conflating the following things: racist vs having racist beliefs, being a white nationalist vs supporting white nationalist movements. Racist is such a loaded word that you have to be more careful in using it, I guess. For the record, I don't think every supporter of these populist parties is actually a white nationalist, but I do think they are guilty of enabling racist rhetoric and empowering white nationalists. I also don't think that every person that has some unexamined racial biases or has feelings of resentment about other races is necessarily a hardcore movement racist, nevertheless they often serve as useful mainstream allies for actual white nationalists. Not all Trump supporters are racist and are attracted to Trump because of racism, but it's still very significant. And the fact that racial resentment correlates to Trump support just seems hugely significant and gives an important clue about his campaign and similar movements in Europe. By the way, my brother votes for the Dutch "freedom party" and as he's consuming a steady diet of these resentment-based media channels that promote white victimhood I can see him slowly radicalizing. One of his friends, who wasn't that politically active before now said the following: he doesn't believe in interracial marriage and he thinks there will be a pan-European conflict between the nationalists (the good guys) and the liberal globalists that use immigration to destroy our culture. People like Trump actually radicalize otherwise normal people, or at least play into their insecurities. It's dangerous. | ||
|
Trainrunnef
United States599 Posts
On September 27 2016 23:14 LegalLord wrote: You know, after thinking about it overnight, I'd have to say that what really went down was that Trump lacked preparation and it showed. There were a good few dozen opportunities in that debate for a high-quality trouncing of Hillary but instead he floundered in a few key moments because he wasn't prepared to make good use of them. When the Cyber-warfare question got brought up and it was Trump's i thought to myself, "whelp there goes Clinton's win". I was so sure that he would hammer her with the emails since she had gotten hacked, but his response made me start to think that he had no idea what they were referring to. The fact that he went off on the tangent about his 10 year old was really confusing, and the only answer i could come up with was the fact that he has no idea what cyber warfare really means, so he defaults to the same 4 things that he always says. "China is killing us in ...." "... will make America great again" "... is a great ... i love ..." "... is 'uge" Also the way he was using it in the sentence was really strange. http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/video/clinton-trump-debate-cybersecurity-hacks-42379073 | ||
|
DarkPlasmaBall
United States45048 Posts
| ||
|
zlefin
United States7689 Posts
On September 27 2016 13:14 KwarK wrote: When Trump sayswhat do we think we should conclude from that? Because that sounds like a lot more than just looking bad. I would read nothing into it; though our resident lawyers may have more to say. Whether his lawyers actually said that who knows. One of THE MOST basic advice from any lawyer on any topic is to use your right to remain silent, say nothing, and offer nothing, unless required to by law. Obviously there can be exceptions, but as a general principle it's good. Also let the lawyer do all the talking, that's what they're for. e.g. the corporate response to basically all legal questions from press is "we do not comment on pending litigation" | ||
|
TheYango
United States47024 Posts
On September 27 2016 23:19 OuchyDathurts wrote: What the hell does over-prepared for a presidential debate even mean? That's not a thing. Would assume he means that she seemed too rehearsed and not natural enough. | ||
|
Mohdoo
United States15725 Posts
On September 27 2016 23:19 OuchyDathurts wrote: I'm not sure preparation is a thing for the man honestly. But they are both lucky they're fighting against each other. If either of them were against virtually anyone else we'd need a meat wagon right now. https://twitter.com/MeetThePress/status/780598101937643520 What the hell does over-prepared for a presidential debate even mean? That's not a thing. "Dude, like, why are you so nerdy about this whole 'being the leader of the free world' thing? You're killing my buzz" | ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands21952 Posts
On September 27 2016 23:19 OuchyDathurts wrote: I'm not sure preparation is a thing for the man honestly. But they are both lucky they're fighting against each other. If either of them were against virtually anyone else we'd need a meat wagon right now. https://twitter.com/MeetThePress/status/780598101937643520 What the hell does over-prepared for a presidential debate even mean? That's not a thing. Over-prepared means the answers felt rehearsed and not spontaneous. As if someone having the most important debate of their life would not rehearse answers to common questions... | ||
|
TheTenthDoc
United States9561 Posts
On September 27 2016 23:19 OuchyDathurts wrote: I'm not sure preparation is a thing for the man honestly. But they are both lucky they're fighting against each other. If either of them were against virtually anyone else we'd need a meat wagon right now. https://twitter.com/MeetThePress/status/780598101937643520 What the hell does over-prepared for a presidential debate even mean? That's not a thing. There were a couple times her voice went into robo-Clinton teleprompter mode (I only listened, didn't watch). That's what people mean by overprepared I think. | ||
|
OuchyDathurts
United States4588 Posts
On September 27 2016 23:29 Mohdoo wrote: "Dude, like, why are you so nerdy about this whole 'being the leader of the free world' thing? You're killing my buzz" Pretty much. Yeah she's more robotic than Obama but everyone sucks compared to Obama as far as speaking is concerned. I'd rather someone takes things deadly serious and "over-prepares" than someone who flies by the seat of their pants trying to be the most powerful person on the planet. Bring on robo-candidate! | ||
|
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
| ||
|
TheYango
United States47024 Posts
| ||
|
ticklishmusic
United States15977 Posts
On September 27 2016 23:28 zlefin wrote: I would read nothing into it; though our resident lawyers may have more to say. Whether his lawyers actually said that who knows. One of THE MOST basic advice from any lawyer on any topic is to use your right to remain silent, say nothing, and offer nothing, unless required to by law. Obviously there can be exceptions, but as a general principle it's good. Also let the lawyer do all the talking, that's what they're for. e.g. the corporate response to basically all legal questions from press is "we do not comment on pending litigation" I agree that I wouldn't read too much into the bit about lawyers, but his refusal to release the taxes when it's pretty much standard is telling in its own way. | ||
|
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
Donald Trump believes that “global warming is naturally occurring,” his campaign manager Kellyanne Conway said Tuesday morning on CNN, contradicting previous online statements from the Manhattan billionaire that the phenomenon is a “hoax” created “by and for the Chinese.” The issue of Donald Trump’s belief in climate science was raised at Monday night’s debate by Hillary Clinton, who said that “Donald thinks that climate change is a hoax perpetrated by the Chinese. I think it's real.” That remark prompted a quick interjection from Trump, who interrupted Clinton to say “I did not, I do not say that.” But Trump has made such remarks in the past on Twitter, writing in 2012 that “the concept of global warming was created by and for the Chinese in order to make U.S. manufacturing non-competitive.” And in 2013, he posted that “Ice storm rolls from Texas to Tennessee - I'm in Los Angeles and it's freezing. Global warming is a total, and very expensive, hoax!” Presented with those posts Tuesday morning, Conway admitted that Trump believes “that climate change is naturally occurring, that there are shifts naturally occurring” but added that the GOP nominee does not believe that those shifts are man-made. She also dismissed the notion that it is possible to grasp Trump’s policy positions, be they on climate change or his stance on the U.S. invasion of Iraq, from non-traditional sources. “I think that's based on a tweet,” Conway said when asked about Trump’s previous statements that climate change is a hoax. “I just love that, that this whole man, whether he's giving a, ‘yeah, I guess so,’ answer to Howard Stern about invading Iraq as a private citizen on an entertainment radio show, or through a tweet, we're supposed to understand all of his policies.” Later, Conway suggested that it is Clinton, not Trump, who has been unclear on the issue of climate change. Source | ||
|
LegalLord
United States13779 Posts
On September 27 2016 23:23 Trainrunnef wrote: When the Cyber-warfare question got brought up and it was Trump's i thought to myself, "whelp there goes Clinton's win". I was so sure that he would hammer her with the emails since she had gotten hacked, but his response made me start to think that he had no idea what they were referring to. The fact that he went off on the tangent about his 10 year old was really confusing, and the only answer i could come up with was the fact that he has no idea what cyber warfare really means, so he defaults to the same 4 things that he always says. "China is killing us in ...." "... will make America great again" "... is a great ... i love ..." "... is 'uge" Also the way he was using it in the sentence was really strange. http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/video/clinton-trump-debate-cybersecurity-hacks-42379073 If I were Trump I would have hammered Hillary with Comey and Lynch on the email issue. Comey gave the Republicans just short of an indiction on the email issue and Lynch did what guilty people do. With some preparation it would have been a one-sided curbstomp. Romney would have managed it if he were the nominee. Hell, even John Rambo McCain might have managed to make it work. | ||
|
Doodsmack
United States7224 Posts
- D. Trump, speaking on "miss piggy", 9/27/16 | ||
|
Dan HH
Romania9137 Posts
On September 27 2016 23:33 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: https://twitter.com/StealthBlue/status/780747025398763520 http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3809204/Most-snap-polls-Trump-winning-debate-landslide.html Not sure if the CBS one is real, but the Time one is. Saw a thread at the top of /r/all last night from the_dumbasses trying to spam it | ||
| ||
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/eFr4c6r.png)
