|
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 28 2016 01:06 Slaughter wrote:
Someone said Trump "blew up" at reporters on the way out of the debate. Is this true and can be confirmed or just rumor?
I didn't see the 1st part of the debate initially where Trump looked better. Seeing that it is not as bad as I initially thought but still it got pretty bad after the 1st part.
I heard NPR talking about it. He went directly into the "spin room" after the debate. (The spin room where his staff is supposed to be talking to reporters, providing greater detail to reporters) The reporters were surprised, but then all bombarded him with questions and he lost his cool with them. Weirdly enough, what happened to Trump is specifically why the candidates don't go into the spin room after the debate, because it ruins any chance their staff would have to clarify their points.
|
On September 28 2016 01:06 Slaughter wrote:
Someone said Trump "blew up" at reporters on the way out of the debate. Is this true and can be confirmed or just rumor?
I didn't see the 1st part of the debate initially where Trump looked better. Seeing that it is not as bad as I initially thought but still it got pretty bad after the 1st part.
I would say "blew up" is an exaggeration, though he wasn't in the best mood after the debate.
|
On September 28 2016 01:03 biology]major wrote:Show nested quote +On September 28 2016 00:58 Mohdoo wrote:On September 28 2016 00:54 biology]major wrote:In all the above points, the opening for Mrs Clinton's advantage was set by the moderator. He first brought up Mr Trump's taxes. He asked about the Obama "birther" controversy. He pushed Mr Trump on the Iraq War and brought up his comment about her "look", which led to the extended discussion of presidential temperament and judgement. Mrs Clinton's weaknesses - particularly her use of a private email server and potential conflicts of interest in her charitable foundation - were barely discussed.
If the winner of political conflict is dictated by the ground on which it is fought, then most of the debate was contested on terrain that was favourable to the Democrat. Some of that was her own effective strategy and preparation; the lawyer's advantage. Some of it was Mr Trump's missteps and meandering; the salesman's failure to move his product.
A lot of it, however, was Holt's doing. That will have Democrats smiling and Trump supporters howling. holt factorThis was my assessment as well, good prep from clinton, poor prep from trump, biased moderation. Not biased. 100% unbiased that happen to be extremely terrible for Trump. The issues asked of Trump would be gigantic issues to any other candidate. Holt treated Trump like any other candidate. Refusal to release taxes in a modern day election is nothing short of lunacy. Clinton, Romney, McCain would all be hung for a refusal to release tax returns or to question the birthplace of the president. Holt was able to realize they are running for the same job. That's cool, I have no issue with asking trump hard questions. What I do have an issue with is not offering the same hard questions to clinton. He basically praised her when he pulled the woman card, and didn't bring up her weaknesses. Oh well it all falls on deaf ears, or blind eyes in this case.
The odd thing is that I dont think they were hard questions at all. Most of the questions he was asked (with the exception of the question on taxes) he had already come to a conclusion that was acceptable to the majority of people i.e. he finally dropped the birther position, The iraq war position is also an easy opinion to change, but instead he got defensive and stubborn, and talked about god knows what for 2 minutes without even answering the damn question. Holt tried to give Trump the opportunity to put down his bravado, have a presidential "look", and give a sober- well thought answer to questions that dogged him since the inception of his campaign, but instead he made himself look worse.
|
On September 28 2016 01:02 Blisse wrote:Show nested quote +On September 27 2016 23:23 Grumbels wrote:On September 27 2016 23:05 kwizach wrote:On September 27 2016 18:22 Ghostcom wrote: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. 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. Not to derail the discussion, but do you guys understand how logic works, specifically what implication is? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Material_conditionalIn this case, we suppose the theory that if A then B, if you are racist/white supremacist, then you support Trump is true, A being you are racist, B being you support Trump, which seems reasonable. It is logically incorrect to conclude that the argument is also, if B then A, if you support Trump then you are racist. If A then B and if B then A are not logically equivalent meaning you can't conclude if B then A without adding new information. Just want to make we're presently the arguments we mean to say. You have to be careful with words.
Who are you referring to by "you guys"? You just said exactly the same thing I did.
|
On September 28 2016 01:10 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On September 28 2016 01:03 biology]major wrote:On September 28 2016 00:58 Mohdoo wrote:On September 28 2016 00:54 biology]major wrote:In all the above points, the opening for Mrs Clinton's advantage was set by the moderator. He first brought up Mr Trump's taxes. He asked about the Obama "birther" controversy. He pushed Mr Trump on the Iraq War and brought up his comment about her "look", which led to the extended discussion of presidential temperament and judgement. Mrs Clinton's weaknesses - particularly her use of a private email server and potential conflicts of interest in her charitable foundation - were barely discussed.
If the winner of political conflict is dictated by the ground on which it is fought, then most of the debate was contested on terrain that was favourable to the Democrat. Some of that was her own effective strategy and preparation; the lawyer's advantage. Some of it was Mr Trump's missteps and meandering; the salesman's failure to move his product.
A lot of it, however, was Holt's doing. That will have Democrats smiling and Trump supporters howling. holt factorThis was my assessment as well, good prep from clinton, poor prep from trump, biased moderation. Not biased. 100% unbiased that happen to be extremely terrible for Trump. The issues asked of Trump would be gigantic issues to any other candidate. Holt treated Trump like any other candidate. Refusal to release taxes in a modern day election is nothing short of lunacy. Clinton, Romney, McCain would all be hung for a refusal to release tax returns or to question the birthplace of the president. Holt was able to realize they are running for the same job. That's cool, I have no issue with asking trump hard questions. What I do have an issue with is not offering the same hard questions to clinton. He basically praised her when he pulled the woman card, and didn't bring up her weaknesses. Oh well it all falls on deaf ears, or blind eyes in this case. So when Clinton says "Yes, the email situation is bad. It was my fault. I take full responsibility and I would not make that decision again", what is a moderator supposed to say? "You are sorry? Well go fuck yourself. Don't you feel guilty? Shouldn't you be in prison?" I mean really, what is the moderator supposed to do? What if he asked about Benghazi? There's ELEVEN HOURS OF TESTIMONY straight from Clinton's mouth freely available. The issue has been exhausted. Have you watched any appreciable amount of the Benghazi hearings? What details do you think were left out? Why do you think they stopped asking her to testify?
Also, there are two more debates and that topic will come up. However, I don't think Trump has the ability to articulate the details of what happened and Hillary is way better informed than him on the topic. There is a 95% chance that he uses the gold star mother of one the victims of that attack as a route of attack. And I doubt it is going to look anything but attempting to use her grief as a political tool, because Trump is incapable of nuance. He also has a number of choice quotes out there saying if he was in charge, their family members would be alive. My prediction is that he ends up looking woefully uninformed on the topic.
|
On September 28 2016 01:12 ticklishmusic wrote:Show nested quote +On September 28 2016 01:06 Slaughter wrote:
Someone said Trump "blew up" at reporters on the way out of the debate. Is this true and can be confirmed or just rumor?
I didn't see the 1st part of the debate initially where Trump looked better. Seeing that it is not as bad as I initially thought but still it got pretty bad after the 1st part. https://twitter.com/leximccammond/status/780604698160136192I would say "blew up" is an exaggeration, though he wasn't in the best mood after the debate.
Maybe don't go into the spin room after the debate and he can avoid the reporters? They literally have the reporters corralled in that room. They can't leave.
|
On September 28 2016 01:10 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On September 28 2016 01:03 biology]major wrote:On September 28 2016 00:58 Mohdoo wrote:On September 28 2016 00:54 biology]major wrote:In all the above points, the opening for Mrs Clinton's advantage was set by the moderator. He first brought up Mr Trump's taxes. He asked about the Obama "birther" controversy. He pushed Mr Trump on the Iraq War and brought up his comment about her "look", which led to the extended discussion of presidential temperament and judgement. Mrs Clinton's weaknesses - particularly her use of a private email server and potential conflicts of interest in her charitable foundation - were barely discussed.
If the winner of political conflict is dictated by the ground on which it is fought, then most of the debate was contested on terrain that was favourable to the Democrat. Some of that was her own effective strategy and preparation; the lawyer's advantage. Some of it was Mr Trump's missteps and meandering; the salesman's failure to move his product.
A lot of it, however, was Holt's doing. That will have Democrats smiling and Trump supporters howling. holt factorThis was my assessment as well, good prep from clinton, poor prep from trump, biased moderation. Not biased. 100% unbiased that happen to be extremely terrible for Trump. The issues asked of Trump would be gigantic issues to any other candidate. Holt treated Trump like any other candidate. Refusal to release taxes in a modern day election is nothing short of lunacy. Clinton, Romney, McCain would all be hung for a refusal to release tax returns or to question the birthplace of the president. Holt was able to realize they are running for the same job. That's cool, I have no issue with asking trump hard questions. What I do have an issue with is not offering the same hard questions to clinton. He basically praised her when he pulled the woman card, and didn't bring up her weaknesses. Oh well it all falls on deaf ears, or blind eyes in this case. So when Clinton says "Yes, the email situation is bad. It was my fault. I take full responsibility and I would not make that decision again", what is a moderator supposed to say? "You are sorry? Well go fuck yourself. Don't you feel guilty? Shouldn't you be in prison?" I mean really, what is the moderator supposed to do? What if he asked about Benghazi? There's ELEVEN HOURS OF TESTIMONY straight from Clinton's mouth freely available. The issue has been exhausted. Have you watched any appreciable amount of the Benghazi hearings? What details do you think were left out? Why do you think they stopped asking her to testify?
Just because it's been discussed before doesn't mean it isn't worth discussing on a debate stage. What kind of ludicrous reasoning is that? They literally have been saying the same thing on policy for the last year now, and so since we already know what it is they are going to say should we just skip over that as well?
|
Does anyone else think its legitimately possible Trump manages to avoid the remaining debates? Not unscathed, but is it possible?
|
On September 28 2016 01:20 Mohdoo wrote:
Does anyone else think its legitimately possible Trump manages to avoid the remaining debates? Not unscathed, but is it possible?
If he comes to the conclusion that he has already lost the election, I could see it happening. If he still thinks he has a shot, there's no way his campaign lets him skip.
|
On September 28 2016 01:20 Mohdoo wrote:
Does anyone else think its legitimately possible Trump manages to avoid the remaining debates? Not unscathed, but is it possible?
My guess is he publicly threatens to drop out, they say k whatever, and there's a big backlash, he backtracks and extracts some "concessions" and crows about what a great deal he made.
And promptly gets his ass handed to him a second time.
|
On September 28 2016 01:19 biology]major wrote:Show nested quote +On September 28 2016 01:10 Mohdoo wrote:On September 28 2016 01:03 biology]major wrote:On September 28 2016 00:58 Mohdoo wrote:On September 28 2016 00:54 biology]major wrote:In all the above points, the opening for Mrs Clinton's advantage was set by the moderator. He first brought up Mr Trump's taxes. He asked about the Obama "birther" controversy. He pushed Mr Trump on the Iraq War and brought up his comment about her "look", which led to the extended discussion of presidential temperament and judgement. Mrs Clinton's weaknesses - particularly her use of a private email server and potential conflicts of interest in her charitable foundation - were barely discussed.
If the winner of political conflict is dictated by the ground on which it is fought, then most of the debate was contested on terrain that was favourable to the Democrat. Some of that was her own effective strategy and preparation; the lawyer's advantage. Some of it was Mr Trump's missteps and meandering; the salesman's failure to move his product.
A lot of it, however, was Holt's doing. That will have Democrats smiling and Trump supporters howling. holt factorThis was my assessment as well, good prep from clinton, poor prep from trump, biased moderation. Not biased. 100% unbiased that happen to be extremely terrible for Trump. The issues asked of Trump would be gigantic issues to any other candidate. Holt treated Trump like any other candidate. Refusal to release taxes in a modern day election is nothing short of lunacy. Clinton, Romney, McCain would all be hung for a refusal to release tax returns or to question the birthplace of the president. Holt was able to realize they are running for the same job. That's cool, I have no issue with asking trump hard questions. What I do have an issue with is not offering the same hard questions to clinton. He basically praised her when he pulled the woman card, and didn't bring up her weaknesses. Oh well it all falls on deaf ears, or blind eyes in this case. So when Clinton says "Yes, the email situation is bad. It was my fault. I take full responsibility and I would not make that decision again", what is a moderator supposed to say? "You are sorry? Well go fuck yourself. Don't you feel guilty? Shouldn't you be in prison?" I mean really, what is the moderator supposed to do? What if he asked about Benghazi? There's ELEVEN HOURS OF TESTIMONY straight from Clinton's mouth freely available. The issue has been exhausted. Have you watched any appreciable amount of the Benghazi hearings? What details do you think were left out? Why do you think they stopped asking her to testify? Just because it's been discussed before doesn't mean it isn't worth discussing on a debate stage. What kind of ludicrous reasoning is that? They literally have been saying the same thing on policy for the last year now, and so since we already know what it is they are going to say should we just skip over that as well?
There are two more debates. Also, Clinton talked about testifying for 11 hours before congress about Benghazi, he could have just worked off of that. But he was to busy being offended by Clinton's point out very true things about him that he did not deny, like not paying people and receiving a ton money from his father.
|
On September 28 2016 01:15 kwizach wrote:Show nested quote +On September 28 2016 01:02 Blisse wrote:On September 27 2016 23:23 Grumbels wrote:On September 27 2016 23:05 kwizach wrote:On September 27 2016 18:22 Ghostcom wrote: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:
[quote]
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. 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. Not to derail the discussion, but do you guys understand how logic works, specifically what implication is? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Material_conditionalIn this case, we suppose the theory that if A then B, if you are racist/white supremacist, then you support Trump is true, A being you are racist, B being you support Trump, which seems reasonable. It is logically incorrect to conclude that the argument is also, if B then A, if you support Trump then you are racist. If A then B and if B then A are not logically equivalent meaning you can't conclude if B then A without adding new information. Just want to make we're presently the arguments we mean to say. You have to be careful with words. Who are you referring to by "you guys"? You just said exactly the same thing I did.
The people that I quoted? I never said I was arguing for or against any of you. I said that it doesn't seem like the problem with the incorrect logical deduction is being articulated properly.
|
On September 28 2016 01:20 Mohdoo wrote:
Does anyone else think its legitimately possible Trump manages to avoid the remaining debates? Not unscathed, but is it possible?
If I was his handlers I would try to prevent him from doing so. If they can give him more Xanax or whatever or somehow alter his personality for a while so he doesn't get unhinged, he'll be able to erase some of this.
|
On September 28 2016 01:19 biology]major wrote:Show nested quote +On September 28 2016 01:10 Mohdoo wrote:On September 28 2016 01:03 biology]major wrote:On September 28 2016 00:58 Mohdoo wrote:On September 28 2016 00:54 biology]major wrote:In all the above points, the opening for Mrs Clinton's advantage was set by the moderator. He first brought up Mr Trump's taxes. He asked about the Obama "birther" controversy. He pushed Mr Trump on the Iraq War and brought up his comment about her "look", which led to the extended discussion of presidential temperament and judgement. Mrs Clinton's weaknesses - particularly her use of a private email server and potential conflicts of interest in her charitable foundation - were barely discussed.
If the winner of political conflict is dictated by the ground on which it is fought, then most of the debate was contested on terrain that was favourable to the Democrat. Some of that was her own effective strategy and preparation; the lawyer's advantage. Some of it was Mr Trump's missteps and meandering; the salesman's failure to move his product.
A lot of it, however, was Holt's doing. That will have Democrats smiling and Trump supporters howling. holt factorThis was my assessment as well, good prep from clinton, poor prep from trump, biased moderation. Not biased. 100% unbiased that happen to be extremely terrible for Trump. The issues asked of Trump would be gigantic issues to any other candidate. Holt treated Trump like any other candidate. Refusal to release taxes in a modern day election is nothing short of lunacy. Clinton, Romney, McCain would all be hung for a refusal to release tax returns or to question the birthplace of the president. Holt was able to realize they are running for the same job. That's cool, I have no issue with asking trump hard questions. What I do have an issue with is not offering the same hard questions to clinton. He basically praised her when he pulled the woman card, and didn't bring up her weaknesses. Oh well it all falls on deaf ears, or blind eyes in this case. So when Clinton says "Yes, the email situation is bad. It was my fault. I take full responsibility and I would not make that decision again", what is a moderator supposed to say? "You are sorry? Well go fuck yourself. Don't you feel guilty? Shouldn't you be in prison?" I mean really, what is the moderator supposed to do? What if he asked about Benghazi? There's ELEVEN HOURS OF TESTIMONY straight from Clinton's mouth freely available. The issue has been exhausted. Have you watched any appreciable amount of the Benghazi hearings? What details do you think were left out? Why do you think they stopped asking her to testify? Just because it's been discussed before doesn't mean it isn't worth discussing on a debate stage. What kind of ludicrous reasoning is that? They literally have been saying the same thing on policy for the last year now, and so since we already know what it is they are going to say should we just skip over that as well?
What you're asking for is not a lack of bias, it is a false equivalence. Holt held the two candidates to the same standard. One of them decided to lie and accuse Holt of being wrong when he wasn't, and could not get himself to recognize any wrongdoing to settle the controversies that were brought up. If two tennis players are engaged in a match and one of them wrongly disputes the calls of umpires, throws his tennis racket at the audience, and decides to take a shit on the court, the chair umpire cannot be called "biased" for calling out behavior that only that one player is engaging in. If the other person behaved the same way, they would get called out as well.
|
On September 28 2016 01:23 Blisse wrote:Show nested quote +On September 28 2016 01:15 kwizach wrote:On September 28 2016 01:02 Blisse wrote:On September 27 2016 23:23 Grumbels wrote:On September 27 2016 23:05 kwizach wrote:On September 27 2016 18:22 Ghostcom wrote: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:
[quote]
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. 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. Not to derail the discussion, but do you guys understand how logic works, specifically what implication is? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Material_conditionalIn this case, we suppose the theory that if A then B, if you are racist/white supremacist, then you support Trump is true, A being you are racist, B being you support Trump, which seems reasonable. It is logically incorrect to conclude that the argument is also, if B then A, if you support Trump then you are racist. If A then B and if B then A are not logically equivalent meaning you can't conclude if B then A without adding new information. Just want to make we're presently the arguments we mean to say. You have to be careful with words. Who are you referring to by "you guys"? You just said exactly the same thing I did. The people that I quoted? I never said I was arguing for or against any of you. I said that it doesn't seem like the problem with the incorrect logical deduction is being articulated properly.
You quoted Grumbels who was quoting me, and since we precisely were both saying what you said yourself (in response to Ghostcom who asked if Grumbels was calling all Trump supporters racist), I'm unsure of why there was a need to ask us if we understood how logic works. Anyway, moving on.
|
On September 28 2016 01:27 kwizach wrote:Show nested quote +On September 28 2016 01:23 Blisse wrote:On September 28 2016 01:15 kwizach wrote:On September 28 2016 01:02 Blisse wrote:On September 27 2016 23:23 Grumbels wrote:On September 27 2016 23:05 kwizach wrote:On September 27 2016 18:22 Ghostcom wrote:On September 27 2016 18:05 Grumbels wrote:On September 27 2016 17:57 Ghostcom wrote:On September 27 2016 17:48 Grumbels wrote:[quote] 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. 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. Not to derail the discussion, but do you guys understand how logic works, specifically what implication is? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Material_conditionalIn this case, we suppose the theory that if A then B, if you are racist/white supremacist, then you support Trump is true, A being you are racist, B being you support Trump, which seems reasonable. It is logically incorrect to conclude that the argument is also, if B then A, if you support Trump then you are racist. If A then B and if B then A are not logically equivalent meaning you can't conclude if B then A without adding new information. Just want to make we're presently the arguments we mean to say. You have to be careful with words. Who are you referring to by "you guys"? You just said exactly the same thing I did. The people that I quoted? I never said I was arguing for or against any of you. I said that it doesn't seem like the problem with the incorrect logical deduction is being articulated properly. You quoted Grumbels who was quoting me, and since we precisely were both saying what you said yourself (in response to Ghostcom who asked if Grumbels was calling all Trump supporters racist), I'm unsure of why there was a need to ask us if we understood how logic works. Anyway, moving on.
On balance, I felt your discussion with Grumbels was a good read and you were both communicating well. I didn't really understand the need for a lesson in logical deduction, since racism is a pretty nuanced topic.
|
On September 28 2016 01:24 kwizach wrote:Show nested quote +On September 28 2016 01:19 biology]major wrote:On September 28 2016 01:10 Mohdoo wrote:On September 28 2016 01:03 biology]major wrote:On September 28 2016 00:58 Mohdoo wrote:On September 28 2016 00:54 biology]major wrote:In all the above points, the opening for Mrs Clinton's advantage was set by the moderator. He first brought up Mr Drumpf's taxes. He asked about the Obama "birther" controversy. He pushed Mr Drumpf on the Iraq War and brought up his comment about her "look", which led to the extended discussion of presidential temperament and judgement. Mrs Clinton's weaknesses - particularly her use of a private email server and potential conflicts of interest in her charitable foundation - were barely discussed.
If the winner of political conflict is dictated by the ground on which it is fought, then most of the debate was contested on terrain that was favourable to the Democrat. Some of that was her own effective strategy and preparation; the lawyer's advantage. Some of it was Mr Drumpf's missteps and meandering; the salesman's failure to move his product.
A lot of it, however, was Holt's doing. That will have Democrats smiling and Drumpf supporters howling. holt factorThis was my assessment as well, good prep from clinton, poor prep from trump, biased moderation. Not biased. 100% unbiased that happen to be extremely terrible for Drumpf. The issues asked of Drumpf would be gigantic issues to any other candidate. Holt treated Drumpf like any other candidate. Refusal to release taxes in a modern day election is nothing short of lunacy. Clinton, Romney, McCain would all be hung for a refusal to release tax returns or to question the birthplace of the president. Holt was able to realize they are running for the same job. That's cool, I have no issue with asking trump hard questions. What I do have an issue with is not offering the same hard questions to clinton. He basically praised her when he pulled the woman card, and didn't bring up her weaknesses. Oh well it all falls on deaf ears, or blind eyes in this case. So when Clinton says "Yes, the email situation is bad. It was my fault. I take full responsibility and I would not make that decision again", what is a moderator supposed to say? "You are sorry? Well go fuck yourself. Don't you feel guilty? Shouldn't you be in prison?" I mean really, what is the moderator supposed to do? What if he asked about Benghazi? There's ELEVEN HOURS OF TESTIMONY straight from Clinton's mouth freely available. The issue has been exhausted. Have you watched any appreciable amount of the Benghazi hearings? What details do you think were left out? Why do you think they stopped asking her to testify? Just because it's been discussed before doesn't mean it isn't worth discussing on a debate stage. What kind of ludicrous reasoning is that? They literally have been saying the same thing on policy for the last year now, and so since we already know what it is they are going to say should we just skip over that as well? What you're asking for is not a lack of bias, it is a false equivalence. Holt held the two candidates to the same standard. One of them decided to lie and accuse Holt of being wrong when he wasn't, and could not get himself to recognize any wrongdoing to settle the controversies that were brought up. If two tennis players are engaged in a match and one of them wrongly disputes the calls of umpires, throws his tennis racket at the audience, and decides to take a shit on the court, the chair umpire cannot be called "biased" for calling out behavior that only that one player is engaging in. If the other person behaved the same way, they would get called out as well.
lol at that bit..
I dont get it, Trump got all the time to say whatever the fuck he wanted, he bullied the hell out of Lester Holt, would ramble for minutes, always got the last word in whenever he wanted, interrupted Hillary incessantly, doubled down on lies that were proven facts and the moderator was biased?
What reality is this ?
ha
|
On September 28 2016 01:31 Rebs wrote:Show nested quote +On September 28 2016 01:24 kwizach wrote:On September 28 2016 01:19 biology]major wrote:On September 28 2016 01:10 Mohdoo wrote:On September 28 2016 01:03 biology]major wrote:On September 28 2016 00:58 Mohdoo wrote:On September 28 2016 00:54 biology]major wrote:In all the above points, the opening for Mrs Clinton's advantage was set by the moderator. He first brought up Mr Drumpf's taxes. He asked about the Obama "birther" controversy. He pushed Mr Drumpf on the Iraq War and brought up his comment about her "look", which led to the extended discussion of presidential temperament and judgement. Mrs Clinton's weaknesses - particularly her use of a private email server and potential conflicts of interest in her charitable foundation - were barely discussed.
If the winner of political conflict is dictated by the ground on which it is fought, then most of the debate was contested on terrain that was favourable to the Democrat. Some of that was her own effective strategy and preparation; the lawyer's advantage. Some of it was Mr Drumpf's missteps and meandering; the salesman's failure to move his product.
A lot of it, however, was Holt's doing. That will have Democrats smiling and Drumpf supporters howling. holt factorThis was my assessment as well, good prep from clinton, poor prep from trump, biased moderation. Not biased. 100% unbiased that happen to be extremely terrible for Drumpf. The issues asked of Drumpf would be gigantic issues to any other candidate. Holt treated Drumpf like any other candidate. Refusal to release taxes in a modern day election is nothing short of lunacy. Clinton, Romney, McCain would all be hung for a refusal to release tax returns or to question the birthplace of the president. Holt was able to realize they are running for the same job. That's cool, I have no issue with asking trump hard questions. What I do have an issue with is not offering the same hard questions to clinton. He basically praised her when he pulled the woman card, and didn't bring up her weaknesses. Oh well it all falls on deaf ears, or blind eyes in this case. So when Clinton says "Yes, the email situation is bad. It was my fault. I take full responsibility and I would not make that decision again", what is a moderator supposed to say? "You are sorry? Well go fuck yourself. Don't you feel guilty? Shouldn't you be in prison?" I mean really, what is the moderator supposed to do? What if he asked about Benghazi? There's ELEVEN HOURS OF TESTIMONY straight from Clinton's mouth freely available. The issue has been exhausted. Have you watched any appreciable amount of the Benghazi hearings? What details do you think were left out? Why do you think they stopped asking her to testify? Just because it's been discussed before doesn't mean it isn't worth discussing on a debate stage. What kind of ludicrous reasoning is that? They literally have been saying the same thing on policy for the last year now, and so since we already know what it is they are going to say should we just skip over that as well? What you're asking for is not a lack of bias, it is a false equivalence. Holt held the two candidates to the same standard. One of them decided to lie and accuse Holt of being wrong when he wasn't, and could not get himself to recognize any wrongdoing to settle the controversies that were brought up. If two tennis players are engaged in a match and one of them wrongly disputes the calls of umpires, throws his tennis racket at the audience, and decides to take a shit on the court, the chair umpire cannot be called "biased" for calling out behavior that only that one player is engaging in. If the other person behaved the same way, they would get called out as well. lol at that bit.. I dont get it, Trump got all the time to say whatever the fuck he wanted, he bullied the hell out of Lester Holt, would ramble for minutes, always got the last word in whenever he wanted, interrupted Hillary incessantly, doubled down on lies that were proven facts and the moderator was biased? What reality is this ? ha
A reality where Trump supporters (or Hillary haters) refuse to acknowledge what actually happened.
Holt didn't ask either candidate particularly difficult questions. Trump should've been ready to put things like his lies about the Iraq War and birtherism to bed. They were easy questions that he was ill-prepared for. Holt also explicitly asked Hillary about her emails and she owned the question and put it to rest. There is no reason to bring up Benghazi; after multiple Congressional investigations and an incredible amount of testimony over the last 5 years, there's no reason to bring it up.
If we want to talk about Holt going soft because he didn't bring up the Clinton foundation, then the exact same thing can be said about Trump and his foundation, his bribing of attorney generals, his extremely suspicious ties to Russia, etc.
|
On September 28 2016 01:19 biology]major wrote:Show nested quote +On September 28 2016 01:10 Mohdoo wrote:On September 28 2016 01:03 biology]major wrote:On September 28 2016 00:58 Mohdoo wrote:On September 28 2016 00:54 biology]major wrote:In all the above points, the opening for Mrs Clinton's advantage was set by the moderator. He first brought up Mr Trump's taxes. He asked about the Obama "birther" controversy. He pushed Mr Trump on the Iraq War and brought up his comment about her "look", which led to the extended discussion of presidential temperament and judgement. Mrs Clinton's weaknesses - particularly her use of a private email server and potential conflicts of interest in her charitable foundation - were barely discussed.
If the winner of political conflict is dictated by the ground on which it is fought, then most of the debate was contested on terrain that was favourable to the Democrat. Some of that was her own effective strategy and preparation; the lawyer's advantage. Some of it was Mr Trump's missteps and meandering; the salesman's failure to move his product.
A lot of it, however, was Holt's doing. That will have Democrats smiling and Trump supporters howling. holt factorThis was my assessment as well, good prep from clinton, poor prep from trump, biased moderation. Not biased. 100% unbiased that happen to be extremely terrible for Trump. The issues asked of Trump would be gigantic issues to any other candidate. Holt treated Trump like any other candidate. Refusal to release taxes in a modern day election is nothing short of lunacy. Clinton, Romney, McCain would all be hung for a refusal to release tax returns or to question the birthplace of the president. Holt was able to realize they are running for the same job. That's cool, I have no issue with asking trump hard questions. What I do have an issue with is not offering the same hard questions to clinton. He basically praised her when he pulled the woman card, and didn't bring up her weaknesses. Oh well it all falls on deaf ears, or blind eyes in this case. So when Clinton says "Yes, the email situation is bad. It was my fault. I take full responsibility and I would not make that decision again", what is a moderator supposed to say? "You are sorry? Well go fuck yourself. Don't you feel guilty? Shouldn't you be in prison?" I mean really, what is the moderator supposed to do? What if he asked about Benghazi? There's ELEVEN HOURS OF TESTIMONY straight from Clinton's mouth freely available. The issue has been exhausted. Have you watched any appreciable amount of the Benghazi hearings? What details do you think were left out? Why do you think they stopped asking her to testify? Just because it's been discussed before doesn't mean it isn't worth discussing on a debate stage. What kind of ludicrous reasoning is that? They literally have been saying the same thing on policy for the last year now, and so since we already know what it is they are going to say should we just skip over that as well?
Holt asked for clarification of Trump's comments. Trump continues to say he can't release his taxes. Holt said that's straight up not true. There is a clear point of disagreement. Holt then pointed out their disagreement regarding Trump's birther timelines. Again, disagreement. When Holt asked Clinton about her emails, she essentially said "You're right, my bad". With Benghazi, there are no further points of contention. The committee she testified in front of dropped the subject. An extremely, extremely motivated committee, mind you. No one is making any further charges on Clinton regarding Benghazi. I am asking what you think the moderator should have asked her about Benghazi.
If that committee can't find anything else to disagree with Clinton on with regarding to Benghazi, what do you expect a moderator to find?
|
On September 28 2016 01:31 Rebs wrote:Show nested quote +On September 28 2016 01:24 kwizach wrote:On September 28 2016 01:19 biology]major wrote:On September 28 2016 01:10 Mohdoo wrote:On September 28 2016 01:03 biology]major wrote:On September 28 2016 00:58 Mohdoo wrote:On September 28 2016 00:54 biology]major wrote:In all the above points, the opening for Mrs Clinton's advantage was set by the moderator. He first brought up Mr Drumpf's taxes. He asked about the Obama "birther" controversy. He pushed Mr Drumpf on the Iraq War and brought up his comment about her "look", which led to the extended discussion of presidential temperament and judgement. Mrs Clinton's weaknesses - particularly her use of a private email server and potential conflicts of interest in her charitable foundation - were barely discussed.
If the winner of political conflict is dictated by the ground on which it is fought, then most of the debate was contested on terrain that was favourable to the Democrat. Some of that was her own effective strategy and preparation; the lawyer's advantage. Some of it was Mr Drumpf's missteps and meandering; the salesman's failure to move his product.
A lot of it, however, was Holt's doing. That will have Democrats smiling and Drumpf supporters howling. holt factorThis was my assessment as well, good prep from clinton, poor prep from trump, biased moderation. Not biased. 100% unbiased that happen to be extremely terrible for Drumpf. The issues asked of Drumpf would be gigantic issues to any other candidate. Holt treated Drumpf like any other candidate. Refusal to release taxes in a modern day election is nothing short of lunacy. Clinton, Romney, McCain would all be hung for a refusal to release tax returns or to question the birthplace of the president. Holt was able to realize they are running for the same job. That's cool, I have no issue with asking trump hard questions. What I do have an issue with is not offering the same hard questions to clinton. He basically praised her when he pulled the woman card, and didn't bring up her weaknesses. Oh well it all falls on deaf ears, or blind eyes in this case. So when Clinton says "Yes, the email situation is bad. It was my fault. I take full responsibility and I would not make that decision again", what is a moderator supposed to say? "You are sorry? Well go fuck yourself. Don't you feel guilty? Shouldn't you be in prison?" I mean really, what is the moderator supposed to do? What if he asked about Benghazi? There's ELEVEN HOURS OF TESTIMONY straight from Clinton's mouth freely available. The issue has been exhausted. Have you watched any appreciable amount of the Benghazi hearings? What details do you think were left out? Why do you think they stopped asking her to testify? Just because it's been discussed before doesn't mean it isn't worth discussing on a debate stage. What kind of ludicrous reasoning is that? They literally have been saying the same thing on policy for the last year now, and so since we already know what it is they are going to say should we just skip over that as well? What you're asking for is not a lack of bias, it is a false equivalence. Holt held the two candidates to the same standard. One of them decided to lie and accuse Holt of being wrong when he wasn't, and could not get himself to recognize any wrongdoing to settle the controversies that were brought up. If two tennis players are engaged in a match and one of them wrongly disputes the calls of umpires, throws his tennis racket at the audience, and decides to take a shit on the court, the chair umpire cannot be called "biased" for calling out behavior that only that one player is engaging in. If the other person behaved the same way, they would get called out as well. lol at that bit.. I dont get it, Trump got all the time to say whatever the fuck he wanted, he bullied the hell out of Lester Holt, would ramble for minutes, always got the last word in whenever he wanted, interrupted Hillary incessantly, doubled down on lies that were proven facts and the moderator was biased? What reality is this ? ha
Let me tell you, the interrupting a woman constantly while she is trying to talk plays really well in the demographic of middle class professional women. It was the number on topic of every female attorney in the office this morning.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
