EPTUS Politics Mega-thread - Page 5226
| Forum Index > Closed |
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please. In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. | ||
|
Doodsmack
United States7224 Posts
| ||
|
Yoav
United States1874 Posts
On September 28 2016 01:57 Doodsmack wrote: If Trump comes to the next debate heavily prepared and presidential, with preparations to nail Clinton on her weak points, he could redeem himself as far the debates go IMO. Conventional wisdom is that the winner of the first debate usually loses the second debate, or at least fails to beat expectations. I imagine he'll actually prepare and it'll be less lopsided. But it's hard to really know... he's just stupid enough he might not change course, in which case she'll just kick the shit out of him the second time too. Edit: The other thing worth saying is that he declined fast. If it actually is a stamina issue, then there's no fixing it. | ||
|
hunts
United States2113 Posts
| ||
|
Stratos_speAr
United States6959 Posts
On September 28 2016 01:59 Yoav wrote: Conventional wisdom is that the winner of the first debate usually loses the second debate, or at least fails to beat expectations. I imagine he'll actually prepare and it'll be less lopsided. But it's hard to really know... he's just stupid enough he might not change course, in which case she'll just kick the shit out of him the second time too. Edit: The other thing worth saying is that he declined fast. If it actually is a stamina issue, then there's no fixing it. Conventional wisdom hasn't really held in this election, so take it with a grain of salt. | ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands21952 Posts
On September 28 2016 01:59 Yoav wrote: Conventional wisdom is that the winner of the first debate usually loses the second debate, or at least fails to beat expectations. I imagine he'll actually prepare and it'll be less lopsided. But it's hard to really know... he's just stupid enough he might not change course, in which case she'll just kick the shit out of him the second time too. Edit: The other thing worth saying is that he declined fast. If it actually is a stamina issue, then there's no fixing it. He tried to be a different person and lasted 5 minutes. I don't see him changing for the next debate, certainly not for its entirely length. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On September 28 2016 02:05 Stratos_speAr wrote: Conventional wisdom hasn't really held in this election, so take it with a grain of salt. If it applied, the debate last night should have not been great for Clinton. I will say that she can’t slow down at all, she needs to prepare for the next debate and be prepared for a more sedate, controlled Trump. I question if one will show up, because he is currently on the offensive and likely will be for the rest of the week. The doubled down on the insult of the Miss Universe winner this morning and she is responding with a press conference. So its likely that Trump will be fighting with her for the next couple days. | ||
|
Danglars
United States12133 Posts
On September 27 2016 23:23 Grumbels wrote: 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. At least I can take you and people who think like you at their word. You really believe this stuff. I say it's a very dangerous conflation and betrays some deep flaws in your thinking you'll have to come to terms with if you're honest with yourself. Most recently, TheYango said it best: On September 24 2016 09:59 TheYango wrote: Intrinsically, I think the idea behind "everybody is a little racist" and "white privilege" and similar ideas isn't to put people into buckets of "racist" and "not racist", but just to make *everybody* (whether they're "racists" or not) a little more aware of how their perspective might color other people's impressions of the things they say or do, and to get everyone to be a little bit more introspective of how they treat people of other races. The goal is to educate and encourage introspection, which I don't think this is an ignoble goal. The problem is that "racist" is a word that has too many negative connotations and people just get hung up on the term, when applying negative monikers to people isn't the point at all. People on the left use it as a way to legitimize their overuse of a negative label and apply the label to people whose ideas they don't like, while people on the right get hung up on the term and just miss the point of what those ideas are about. I think introspection is a noble goal and hopefully new terms of dialogue will emerge to encourage that goal. I say that simply because any good intentions get lost in what has been a very blunt instrument to cast ideas out by assaulting the speaker's credibility. Why engage with a basket of deplorables? You're a rare one to meet where I live. Most people I hear with the line that I shouldn't vote for Trump because he's a racist and enables racists literally doesn't have any close family voting for Trump. It's very easy to demonize broad swaths of America because they're strangers and their reasons for choosing other than Hillary are strange. Someone's top two Trump said/did this and I could never vote for him are another person's top two Hillary said/did that and it immediately took her out of the running. + Show Spoiler + I'm only speaking to US parties here, because I haven't done enough research on the platforms of Europe's populist/nationalist/whatevers. The GOP is currently headed by a populist. The charge of racist has been leveled at other candidates. Four years ago, Romney was accused of being a racist. Cry wolf enough, and people stop taking you seriously. So I think everybody that's been crying wolf on immigration policy for decades is guilty of promoting some very inflated speech on race relations because that's the kind of politician they create by their actions to break through into the public consciousness. I mean, do you want to have a conversation with someone that will allow you you're not openly racist, maybe have some "unexamined racial biases or feelings of resentment," but will argue you're still guilty of empowering white supremacists and enabling racist rhetoric? I'd sooner accuse you of purposefully slandering people you disagree with because you ran out of real arguments against them. Or that you, Grumbels, would purposely stomp someone feeling like their culture is slipping away simply because you think only racists would be worried about that kind of stuff. But I happen to think you're not going that far to detest your fellow man and sincerely think you're helping things explaining why the people with Trump signs are guilty of enabling white racial fanatics. I dare you to read starting on this link for thirty odd pages. Maybe you can see how counterproductive current attitudes on race are. Let's debate politics, but of course at the outset we both know how your actions further the cause of known murderers (as an example). I mean you're somehow okay with promoting the aims of the scum of the earth. Yeah, 2016 right? Okay now about your thoughts on education policy... | ||
|
Doodsmack
United States7224 Posts
| ||
|
CobaltBlu
United States919 Posts
Conventional wisdom would be that Trump could have one this debate by default if he just avoided getting flustered. The story would be how he held his cool and was presidential so I'm not confident he is going to improve much next time. | ||
|
raga4ka
Bulgaria5679 Posts
| ||
|
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
Donald Trump should skip the next two debates unless he gets special guarantees from the moderators, former New York mayor and top Trump adviser Rudy Giuliani told reporters after the debate. Lester Holt, the NBC News anchor who moderated the debate, should be “ashamed of himself,” Giuliani said after the debate. He said Holt was wrong to attempt to fact-check Trump on the constitutionality of stop-and-frisk and his claimed opposition to the Iraq War. “If I were Donald Trump I wouldn’t participate in another debate unless I was promised that the journalist would act like a journalist and not an incorrect, ignorant fact checker,” Giuliani said. “The moderator would have to promise that there would be a moderator and not a fact checker and in two particular cases an enormously ignorant, completely misinformed fact checker.” “If you wonder why Donald Trump thinks that the press is a left-wing basically oriented group, Lester Holt proved it tonight," he added. He later clarified about future debates: “I didn’t say what I’m advising him, I said what I would do.” Trump himself had no problem with Holt's performance. The moderator did a "fine" job, Trump said. But Giuliani was especially piqued by Holt’s claim that “stop and frisk was ruled unconstitutional in New York.” “No, you're wrong. It went before a judge who was a very-against-police judge,” Trump responded. “It was taken away from her and our mayor, our new mayor, refused to go forward with the case. They would have won an appeal.” “Stop and frisk is completely constitutional and the American people have been given the false impression that it isn’t,” Giuliani said. A federal district court judge ruled in 2013 that New York City’s stop-and-frisk policy violated the Constitution. Mayor Bill de Blasio, who ran on a platform opposing stop-and-frisk, ended the policy soon after taking office. Source | ||
KwarK
United States43219 Posts
| ||
|
DarkPlasmaBall
United States45041 Posts
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? Funny you should say that... http://www.newyorker.com/humor/borowitz-report/trump-threatens-to-skip-remaining-debates-if-hillary-is-there?mbid=social_facebook  | ||
|
ticklishmusic
United States15977 Posts
anyone want to point out exactly when giuliani went off the deep end? | ||
TheNewEra
Germany3128 Posts
God damnit. Kill me  | ||
|
farvacola
United States18838 Posts
| ||
|
Nebuchad
Switzerland12320 Posts
This sentence wins. There is a lot of win in that sentence, it is amazing. Believe me. edit: Oh wait it's bullshit. I'm an idiot >< | ||
|
Mohdoo
United States15723 Posts
On September 28 2016 02:28 ticklishmusic wrote: anyone want to point out exactly when giuliani went off the deep end? It feels like he's trying to share a spot with Ann Coulter lately, but with a twist. Not quite as blatantly racist, but equally unacceptably ignorant. On September 28 2016 02:33 Nebuchad wrote: “Every time I said something, she would say something back,” he said. “It was rigged.” This sentence wins. There is a lot of win in that sentence, it is amazing. Believe me. edit: Oh wait it's bullshit. I'm an idiot >< Let's take a moment to appreciate the fact that you really had no reason to believe it was bullshit. | ||
|
Dan HH
Romania9136 Posts
On September 28 2016 02:33 Nebuchad wrote: “Every time I said something, she would say something back,” he said. “It was rigged.” This sentence wins. There is a lot of win in that sentence, it is amazing. Believe me. edit: Oh wait it's bullshit. I'm an idiot >< Haha, The Borowitz Report always tricks some people around here. Poe's law in action | ||
|
KOFgokuon
United States14899 Posts
On September 28 2016 02:28 ticklishmusic wrote: anyone want to point out exactly when giuliani went off the deep end? it's been downhill since his senate campaign in 2001 and really downhill since he ran for president in '08 | ||
| ||
