|
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 October 06 2016 02:32 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On October 06 2016 02:30 oBlade wrote:On October 06 2016 02:16 Plansix wrote:On October 06 2016 02:08 TheTenthDoc wrote:On October 06 2016 01:54 oBlade wrote:We are living in a post-factual election, but it's not because of the right. People would believe that Trump is angry about his running mate winning, Kaine asks Pence how he knows Trump has a business, and people can't verify that Trump has had rallies of over 20k. http://www.cnn.com/2015/08/21/politics/donald-trump-rally-mobile-alabama/ More than a year ago. But you don't even acknowledge he lies about his rally size ever, so. Also if you dig into the 30K number further, there was no office ticket count and estimates very. Some said 20K. It was a lot of people in a state that was going to vote for him no matter what and it was a year ago. Trump plays to small crowds, just like Clinton. He just likes to hype the big crowds when he is in an area that will pull in that sort of crowd. But that is not how one wins elections. Right, you win by campaigning. But going in front of large groups of people around the country and talking to them about your candidacy isn't necessarily related to that. Good, glad you agree Trump lies about his rally numbers and they are not a direct metric for success in this election. Glad we had this discussion. I didn't say anything covering either point to begin with, stop having infantile arguments with yourself.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On October 06 2016 02:39 zlefin wrote:Show nested quote +On October 06 2016 02:38 LegalLord wrote:On October 06 2016 02:34 zlefin wrote: there's no convenient list of the questions asked of the candidates in the debate; so I'd have to go through the full transcript; not worth it just for the fun of answering the questions myself. oh well. I'm surprised a bit; I'd have thought there'd be a condensed list up somewhere easy to find on google, but it didn't show in my searches. They weren't particularly good questions anyways. Besides, if you're answering in text format, it's better to get questions more suitable for that format. Part of the trick of being asked in real time is the impromptu aspect that doesn't exist here. yeah; but otoh i'm not an actual candidate who should've prepped for the debate; so I think that compensates for not having the impromptu difficulty. and I haven't had much luck getting questions from people anyways; something about me being not a candidate makes people even less interested in my answers  A lot of the fun of the debate is how the candidates paint their opponents. You don't get that without an opponent.
Based on your posting history I'd probably go with the "self-righteous technocrat" line of attack if I were your opponent, FWIW.
|
On October 06 2016 02:45 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On October 06 2016 02:39 zlefin wrote:On October 06 2016 02:38 LegalLord wrote:On October 06 2016 02:34 zlefin wrote: there's no convenient list of the questions asked of the candidates in the debate; so I'd have to go through the full transcript; not worth it just for the fun of answering the questions myself. oh well. I'm surprised a bit; I'd have thought there'd be a condensed list up somewhere easy to find on google, but it didn't show in my searches. They weren't particularly good questions anyways. Besides, if you're answering in text format, it's better to get questions more suitable for that format. Part of the trick of being asked in real time is the impromptu aspect that doesn't exist here. yeah; but otoh i'm not an actual candidate who should've prepped for the debate; so I think that compensates for not having the impromptu difficulty. and I haven't had much luck getting questions from people anyways; something about me being not a candidate makes people even less interested in my answers  A lot of the fun of the debate is how the candidates paint their opponents. You don't get that without an opponent. Based on your posting history I'd probably go with the "self-righteous technocrat" line of attack if I were your opponent, FWIW. sounds like a plausible line of attack. but debates are only partly supposed to be about fun; they're also supposed to be about enlightening people, discussing policy, and learning. and noone offered to be opponent either, i'm just trying to work with what I got.
|
On October 06 2016 02:47 zlefin wrote:Show nested quote +On October 06 2016 02:45 LegalLord wrote:On October 06 2016 02:39 zlefin wrote:On October 06 2016 02:38 LegalLord wrote:On October 06 2016 02:34 zlefin wrote: there's no convenient list of the questions asked of the candidates in the debate; so I'd have to go through the full transcript; not worth it just for the fun of answering the questions myself. oh well. I'm surprised a bit; I'd have thought there'd be a condensed list up somewhere easy to find on google, but it didn't show in my searches. They weren't particularly good questions anyways. Besides, if you're answering in text format, it's better to get questions more suitable for that format. Part of the trick of being asked in real time is the impromptu aspect that doesn't exist here. yeah; but otoh i'm not an actual candidate who should've prepped for the debate; so I think that compensates for not having the impromptu difficulty. and I haven't had much luck getting questions from people anyways; something about me being not a candidate makes people even less interested in my answers  A lot of the fun of the debate is how the candidates paint their opponents. You don't get that without an opponent. Based on your posting history I'd probably go with the "self-righteous technocrat" line of attack if I were your opponent, FWIW. sounds like a plausible line of attack. but debates are only partly supposed to be about fun; they're also supposed to be about enlightening people, discussing policy, and learning. and noone offered to be opponent either, i'm just trying to work with what I got. I sure hope your not trying to become a politician in the US because your not going to find enlightening, policy or learning.
|
On October 06 2016 02:49 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On October 06 2016 02:47 zlefin wrote:On October 06 2016 02:45 LegalLord wrote:On October 06 2016 02:39 zlefin wrote:On October 06 2016 02:38 LegalLord wrote:On October 06 2016 02:34 zlefin wrote: there's no convenient list of the questions asked of the candidates in the debate; so I'd have to go through the full transcript; not worth it just for the fun of answering the questions myself. oh well. I'm surprised a bit; I'd have thought there'd be a condensed list up somewhere easy to find on google, but it didn't show in my searches. They weren't particularly good questions anyways. Besides, if you're answering in text format, it's better to get questions more suitable for that format. Part of the trick of being asked in real time is the impromptu aspect that doesn't exist here. yeah; but otoh i'm not an actual candidate who should've prepped for the debate; so I think that compensates for not having the impromptu difficulty. and I haven't had much luck getting questions from people anyways; something about me being not a candidate makes people even less interested in my answers  A lot of the fun of the debate is how the candidates paint their opponents. You don't get that without an opponent. Based on your posting history I'd probably go with the "self-righteous technocrat" line of attack if I were your opponent, FWIW. sounds like a plausible line of attack. but debates are only partly supposed to be about fun; they're also supposed to be about enlightening people, discussing policy, and learning. and noone offered to be opponent either, i'm just trying to work with what I got. I sure hope your not trying to become a politician in the US because your not going to find enlightening, policy or learning. I am in the US; but I know it's not a good place ot get those things; until the system is reformed to be better, which is vanishingliny unlikely.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On October 06 2016 02:47 zlefin wrote:Show nested quote +On October 06 2016 02:45 LegalLord wrote:On October 06 2016 02:39 zlefin wrote:On October 06 2016 02:38 LegalLord wrote:On October 06 2016 02:34 zlefin wrote: there's no convenient list of the questions asked of the candidates in the debate; so I'd have to go through the full transcript; not worth it just for the fun of answering the questions myself. oh well. I'm surprised a bit; I'd have thought there'd be a condensed list up somewhere easy to find on google, but it didn't show in my searches. They weren't particularly good questions anyways. Besides, if you're answering in text format, it's better to get questions more suitable for that format. Part of the trick of being asked in real time is the impromptu aspect that doesn't exist here. yeah; but otoh i'm not an actual candidate who should've prepped for the debate; so I think that compensates for not having the impromptu difficulty. and I haven't had much luck getting questions from people anyways; something about me being not a candidate makes people even less interested in my answers  A lot of the fun of the debate is how the candidates paint their opponents. You don't get that without an opponent. Based on your posting history I'd probably go with the "self-righteous technocrat" line of attack if I were your opponent, FWIW. sounds like a plausible line of attack. but debates are only partly supposed to be about fun; they're also supposed to be about enlightening people, discussing policy, and learning. and noone offered to be opponent either, i'm just trying to work with what I got. I read a candidate's platform or a summary of it if I want to know where they stand on the issues. A debate is more of an attempt to see how they and their ideas stand up to scrutiny - which pretty much mandates an opponent.
|
On October 06 2016 02:51 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On October 06 2016 02:47 zlefin wrote:On October 06 2016 02:45 LegalLord wrote:On October 06 2016 02:39 zlefin wrote:On October 06 2016 02:38 LegalLord wrote:On October 06 2016 02:34 zlefin wrote: there's no convenient list of the questions asked of the candidates in the debate; so I'd have to go through the full transcript; not worth it just for the fun of answering the questions myself. oh well. I'm surprised a bit; I'd have thought there'd be a condensed list up somewhere easy to find on google, but it didn't show in my searches. They weren't particularly good questions anyways. Besides, if you're answering in text format, it's better to get questions more suitable for that format. Part of the trick of being asked in real time is the impromptu aspect that doesn't exist here. yeah; but otoh i'm not an actual candidate who should've prepped for the debate; so I think that compensates for not having the impromptu difficulty. and I haven't had much luck getting questions from people anyways; something about me being not a candidate makes people even less interested in my answers  A lot of the fun of the debate is how the candidates paint their opponents. You don't get that without an opponent. Based on your posting history I'd probably go with the "self-righteous technocrat" line of attack if I were your opponent, FWIW. sounds like a plausible line of attack. but debates are only partly supposed to be about fun; they're also supposed to be about enlightening people, discussing policy, and learning. and noone offered to be opponent either, i'm just trying to work with what I got. I read a candidate's platform or a summary of it if I want to know where they stand on the issues. A debate is more of an attempt to see how they and their ideas stand up to scrutiny - which pretty much mandates an opponent. silly platforms that don't stand up to scrutiny. the whole point is to build sound ideas, they should've already been thoroughly vetted. Or if they're just general aims/goals they don't have to be I suppose. I've thought of making up a platform for fun, but i'm not sure it's fun enough, and noone else has interest in such.
|
On October 06 2016 02:15 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On October 06 2016 01:45 Danglars wrote:On October 06 2016 01:19 Acrofales wrote:On October 06 2016 01:16 oBlade wrote:On October 06 2016 00:53 Acrofales wrote:On October 06 2016 00:16 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2016/10/04/nigel_farage_will_attend_second_debate_as_trumps_guest_rise_above_the_catfight.htmlNigel Farage Will Attend Second Debate As Trump's Guest The leader behind 'Brexit' speaks with Fox News Channel's Neil Cavuto about his advice for Donald Trump ahead of the second presidential debate. Farage will attend the debate as a guest of Mr. Trump.
"The advice I have for Donald Trump, I don't have to give it to him face-to-face," the UKIP leader said. "I will share it with you right now on this show, it is very simple. The Clinton team analyzed that Trump is a proud man -- proud of his achievements, proud of himself, proud of his family. And if you attack him on his record, try to tear to bits his business empire and his past, he will try to defend himself."
He continued: "My advice to Mr. Trump is dead simple: Do not be accused of financial impropriety by the Clintons. Do not be told you are a misogynist by a woman whose Foundation takes money from Saudi Arabia. Rise above, don't get involved in some sort of terrible catfight. Rise above it and tell the American people why you are the candidate for change." Great. So the guy who fled the UK in disgrace after the Brexit campaign, is an honored guest of the other populist demagogue on the other side of the pond. I guess birds of a feather flock together. Fled in disgrace... the goal of his career, that he campaigned for for decades... And having attained this crowning achievement, instead of seeing it come to pass, he resigned from leading his party and ran away from the UK. E: I'm sure KwarK has more to say on the matter. I am not particularly well versed on the details, but insofar as I know the fallout from the Brexit campaign was nobody at all being happy with the results, ironically least of all the pro-Brexit campaigners. But are there vocal right-wingers on TL that supported UKIP/Farage's MEP campaign? The takeaway in today's era of hyperpartisanship, very visible in this thread, is not to take at face value critics with bare agendas in isoluation. I'd like to at least hear the other side before coming to a conclusion. Two big players abruptly quit and it looks bad. If they did it in an altruistic desire for political unity and to foster new alliances free of their influence, I suspect they'd still be called cowards leaving messes at the doorsteps of others. While there's something to be said for Cameron stepping down, as he was against Brexit, but "felt that the people had a right to vote on it" (or rather, he gambled with it so he could win the election, and then fell flat on his face when it didn't go as well as the Scotland referendum went for him). After campaigning against Brexit, he is clearly not the man to lead the government through the Brexit. I don't know the first thing about May (the news painted her has a bit of an opportunist in the grab for the PM spot). Farage campaigned most of his political career for the Brexit. People voted for the Brexit. Rather than saying "right, now lets do this properly. Here´s how UKIP would tackle this Brexit: <policy>", he said "errrmmm, I want to spend more time with my family. cya, wouldn't wanna be ya". As all other populists in Europe, he had a list of "things wrong with the country" and absolutely no clue how to fix them. Yeah it's a strong argument. But did you grasp my point? If there isn't a single UKIP/Farage voter in the forum piping up, how will you ever know if it's strong argument or just the only one currently in town?
It's your opinion that Farage is populist and populists have a knack for labeling problems with no plan to fix them, and it jives with Farage leaving. That's common left-right rhetoric from the left's viewpoint. This thread is prodigiously bad at contextualizing the opposing arguments for the opposition (good at vilifying and sometimes good at satirizing). I only wish for a good-faith supporter that agrees with the damning report or disagrees and why.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
We could frame this as a Congressional hearing instead: one side asks ridiculous loaded questions and is filled with faux outrage, the other side lobs stupid softball questions and asks unrelated stuff. Your job is to give non-answers to the questions you don't want to answer.
|
On October 06 2016 03:01 LegalLord wrote: We could frame this as a Congressional hearing instead: one side asks ridiculous loaded questions and is filled with faux outrage, the other side lobs stupid softball questions and asks unrelated stuff. Your job is to give non-answers to the questions you don't want to answer. hmm, i'm sure one could make an entertaining game out of that. but I watch enough cspan that I don't want to go through more hearings
|
I don't understand how there are any people who are still undecided in terms of the presidency. The candidates could not be any more different in every single regard. Also, the Trump apologists baffle me. He hides his taxes because he knows he fucked up and it will piss people off (meaning he knows it was wrong), then he gets caught anyway, then tries to act like it proves he's a money genius..... and there are people in this country who are gonna still vote for him. Im no Clinton lover, but holy shit, am I crazy for saying that even in a lesser of two evils kind of race, Hillary is at the very least, immensey more qualified in pretty much every way? I just don't understand what the Trumpers see him bringing to the table as a president except what they see as brutal honesty (but is usually him just flying off the handle inappropriately). This whole election is a baffling circus.
|
On October 06 2016 04:17 Ayaz2810 wrote: I don't understand how there are any people who are still undecided in terms of the presidency. The candidates could not be any more different in every single regard. Also, the Trump apologists baffle me. He hides his taxes because he knows he fucked up and it will piss people off (meaning he knows it was wrong), then he gets caught anyway, then tries to act like it proves he's a money genius..... and there are people in this country who are gonna still vote for him. Im no Clinton lover, but holy shit, am I crazy for saying that even in a lesser of two evils kind of race, Hillary is at the very least, immensey more qualified in pretty much every way? I just don't understand what the Trumpers see him bringing to the table as a president except what they see as brutal honesty (but is usually him just flying off the handle inappropriately). This whole election is a baffling circus. people have always been incredibly stupid; it's nothing new there. it's just more apparent this time.
as for people being undecided; it's usually because they've paid very little attention up until recently, and don't read news regularly.
|
On October 06 2016 04:17 Ayaz2810 wrote: I don't understand how there are any people who are still undecided in terms of the presidency. The candidates could not be any more different in every single regard. Also, the Trump apologists baffle me. He hides his taxes because he knows he fucked up and it will piss people off (meaning he knows it was wrong), then he gets caught anyway, then tries to act like it proves he's a money genius..... and there are people in this country who are gonna still vote for him. Im no Clinton lover, but holy shit, am I crazy for saying that even in a lesser of two evils kind of race, Hillary is at the very least, immensey more qualified in pretty much every way? I just don't understand what the Trumpers see him bringing to the table as a president except what they see as brutal honesty (but is usually him just flying off the handle inappropriately). This whole election is a baffling circus. It wouldn't be the first time in democracy's history that people display bad judgment and stupidity to a staggering level.
Let's put it that way : there is nothing right about Trump as a candidate. There is not a single reason to vote for this guy.
He is dishonest, unstable, has the emotional maturity of a 10 years old, is bombastic and megalomaniac to an embarrassing level that borders psychological disorder, has 0 moral compass, no knowledge of anything except how to screw people over, no political experience whatsoever, surrounds himself with scumbags and idiots, and has a platform that makes 0 sense.
I sincerely can not name one thing that would be in the "positive" column for Trump as a president.
I get it that a hardcore conservative wouldn't vote for Clinton, because she has a liberal platform, or because they buy the idiotic scandal media circus, but voting for Trump is downright stupid.
|
Seems like the whole VP debate strategy they had was to get this ad
|
|
On October 06 2016 04:17 Ayaz2810 wrote: I don't understand how there are any people who are still undecided in terms of the presidency. The candidates could not be any more different in every single regard. Also, the Trump apologists baffle me. He hides his taxes because he knows he fucked up and it will piss people off (meaning he knows it was wrong), then he gets caught anyway, then tries to act like it proves he's a money genius..... and there are people in this country who are gonna still vote for him. Im no Clinton lover, but holy shit, am I crazy for saying that even in a lesser of two evils kind of race, Hillary is at the very least, immensey more qualified in pretty much every way? I just don't understand what the Trumpers see him bringing to the table as a president except what they see as brutal honesty (but is usually him just flying off the handle inappropriately). This whole election is a baffling circus.
Trump dodged taxes using legal loopholes. Hillary helped a child molester she was convinced was guilty walk free. Morally, I'd take Trump. No doubt she's smarter, though, but Trump spews unprocessed meaningless drivel; Hillary spews well calculated, well acted lies. The whole campaign process is so incredibly shady, too. So much money from so many questionable sources. Personally, I wouldn't be able to vote for either of them without feeling at least a little sick.
|
That has been the assessment of all the coverage I have heard. That Kaine’s sole purpose in the debate was to keep the focus on Trump and not let Trump have a night off. And it worked because Trump was retweeting insults during the debate, like a chump.
|
On October 06 2016 04:45 bardtown wrote:Show nested quote +On October 06 2016 04:17 Ayaz2810 wrote: I don't understand how there are any people who are still undecided in terms of the presidency. The candidates could not be any more different in every single regard. Also, the Trump apologists baffle me. He hides his taxes because he knows he fucked up and it will piss people off (meaning he knows it was wrong), then he gets caught anyway, then tries to act like it proves he's a money genius..... and there are people in this country who are gonna still vote for him. Im no Clinton lover, but holy shit, am I crazy for saying that even in a lesser of two evils kind of race, Hillary is at the very least, immensey more qualified in pretty much every way? I just don't understand what the Trumpers see him bringing to the table as a president except what they see as brutal honesty (but is usually him just flying off the handle inappropriately). This whole election is a baffling circus. Trump dodged taxes using legal loopholes. Hillary helped a child molester she was convinced was guilty walk free. Morally, I'd take Trump. No doubt she's smarter, though, but Trump spews unprocessed meaningless drivel; Hillary spews well calculated, well acted lies. The whole campaign process is so incredibly shady, too. So much money from so many questionable sources. Personally, I wouldn't be able to vote for either of them without feeling at least a little sick.
As a defence attorney it's your job to defend child molesters in court, because they as everybody else are entitled to a legal defence. That's actually her moral duty.
|
On October 06 2016 04:45 bardtown wrote:Show nested quote +On October 06 2016 04:17 Ayaz2810 wrote: I don't understand how there are any people who are still undecided in terms of the presidency. The candidates could not be any more different in every single regard. Also, the Trump apologists baffle me. He hides his taxes because he knows he fucked up and it will piss people off (meaning he knows it was wrong), then he gets caught anyway, then tries to act like it proves he's a money genius..... and there are people in this country who are gonna still vote for him. Im no Clinton lover, but holy shit, am I crazy for saying that even in a lesser of two evils kind of race, Hillary is at the very least, immensey more qualified in pretty much every way? I just don't understand what the Trumpers see him bringing to the table as a president except what they see as brutal honesty (but is usually him just flying off the handle inappropriately). This whole election is a baffling circus. Trump dodged taxes using legal loopholes. Hillary helped a child molester she was convinced was guilty walk free. Morally, I'd take Trump. No doubt she's smarter, though, but Trump spews unprocessed meaningless drivel; Hillary spews well calculated, well acted lies. The whole campaign process is so incredibly shady, too. So much money from so many questionable sources. Personally, I wouldn't be able to vote for either of them without feeling at least a little sick. you don't seem aware of how the legal process works; do you realize that? lawyers are supposed to defend their clients.
|
On October 06 2016 04:45 bardtown wrote:Show nested quote +On October 06 2016 04:17 Ayaz2810 wrote: I don't understand how there are any people who are still undecided in terms of the presidency. The candidates could not be any more different in every single regard. Also, the Trump apologists baffle me. He hides his taxes because he knows he fucked up and it will piss people off (meaning he knows it was wrong), then he gets caught anyway, then tries to act like it proves he's a money genius..... and there are people in this country who are gonna still vote for him. Im no Clinton lover, but holy shit, am I crazy for saying that even in a lesser of two evils kind of race, Hillary is at the very least, immensey more qualified in pretty much every way? I just don't understand what the Trumpers see him bringing to the table as a president except what they see as brutal honesty (but is usually him just flying off the handle inappropriately). This whole election is a baffling circus. Trump dodged taxes using legal loopholes. Hillary helped a child molester she was convinced was guilty walk free. Morally, I'd take Trump. No doubt she's smarter, though, but Trump spews unprocessed meaningless drivel; Hillary spews well calculated, well acted lies. The whole campaign process is so incredibly shady, too. So much money from so many questionable sources. Personally, I wouldn't be able to vote for either of them without feeling at least a little sick. Are you serious? She was doing her fucking job. Do you know what being a lawyer is?
So you would feel sick voting for Clinton because she was good at being a lawyer, and because you have a gut feeling about her being shady. Have you even read about Trump's scandals? The Trump University? The way he behaved with shareholders? The way he was not paying contractors? The way he treats people in general?
Jesus Christ, the humanity...
|
|
|
|