|
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 10 2016 10:03 Netscape9 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 10 2016 10:02 OuchyDathurts wrote:On October 10 2016 09:59 Netscape9 wrote:On October 10 2016 09:57 OuchyDathurts wrote:On October 10 2016 09:53 Netscape9 wrote:
Lol at the moderator talking about how they want to "improve" their debates. These people are deliberately gatekeeping Gary Johnson and Jill Stein from the debates to effectively rig the election. Such disgusting conmen. To be fair neither of those people have a snowballs chance in hell of winning so having 4 people talk about things instead of 2 wastes time and waters things down. If there were more debates overall and a longer time frame sure why not let them look stupid in front of the world. But what, 4 debates total, 3 president 1 vp? Aint no one got time for that. Johnson was at around ~10% before the first debate and is still at 10%. Polls show the majority of Americans believe that Johnson should be allowed it. Whether you like it or not, Johnson has ideas that the majority of Americans believe should be heard and brought to the table. And on top of that, the reason they don't have a "snowball's chance" is because they aren't allowed into the debate. Most of Johnson's ideas don't hold up to any scrutiny. Any competent R or D candidate could make him walk out of the debate crying into his hands. I don't agree with Johnson on everything, but he's much more on-point, reasonable and honest than either of the two clowns on stage.
I'm sure he could run circles around Trump since Trump is a moron. But Hillary would destroy him. Go after his total lack of any foreign understanding and his worship of Ayn Rand and its over.
As was also pointed out a third party can't win because things go to the house who will just vote their boy Trump in.
|
Martha Raddatz did pretty good last year with the VP debate, which went pretty well as far as moderation goes. Hopefully this will be good.
And Anderson Cooper, lol.
|
On October 10 2016 10:03 jalstar wrote:Show nested quote +On October 10 2016 09:59 Netscape9 wrote:On October 10 2016 09:57 OuchyDathurts wrote:On October 10 2016 09:53 Netscape9 wrote:
Lol at the moderator talking about how they want to "improve" their debates. These people are deliberately gatekeeping Gary Johnson and Jill Stein from the debates to effectively rig the election. Such disgusting conmen. To be fair neither of those people have a snowballs chance in hell of winning so having 4 people talk about things instead of 2 wastes time and waters things down. If there were more debates overall and a longer time frame sure why not let them look stupid in front of the world. But what, 4 debates total, 3 president 1 vp? Aint no one got time for that. Johnson was at around ~10% before the first debate and is still at 10%. Polls show the majority of Americans believe that Johnson should be allowed it. Whether you like it or not, Johnson has ideas that the majority of Americans believe should be heard and brought to the table. And on top of that, the reason they don't have a "snowball's chance" is because they aren't allowed into the debate. No, the reason he doesn't have a chance is that even if he splits the vote 3 ways then the vote goes to the house and a major party wins. A real 3rd party would be trying to get seats in the house and senate, the Libertarians and Greens aren't serious about winning.
You do realize it's about getting your ideas out there, right? Nobody would even know the Green or Libertarian parties EXISTED without them having major figures like Johnson and Stein spearheading their parties.
|
I thought Johnson was around at 8%, not 10%. and that was before the aleppo gaffes. Anyways, debate is starting.
|
On October 10 2016 10:05 Nevuk wrote:
I thought Johnson was around at 8%, not 10%. and that was before the aleppo gaffes. Anyways, debate is starting.
He's at 8% now, but was at 10% a few weeks ago.
|
On October 10 2016 10:01 biology]major wrote:Show nested quote +On October 10 2016 10:00 Leporello wrote:On October 10 2016 09:54 biology]major wrote:On October 10 2016 09:52 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On October 10 2016 09:50 biology]major wrote:On October 10 2016 09:47 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On October 10 2016 09:46 biology]major wrote:
For the love of god, ask about why she lied about her emails, and the Clinton foundation. I'm all for asking trump tough questions, but there's another candidate too. She's been asked about her e-mails a thousand times and has apologized (and did nothing illegal, just careless), and the Clinton Foundation has an overall great reputation (especially compared to the Trump Foundation). No about her lying to the public vs FBI. I've heard her explanation for her email use. What will happen to cf once she becomes president? Unless the answer is "Directly fund Putin and porn", I don't think the answer is going to really matter. + Show Spoiler +Although if that's her answer, she might actually steal some Trump supporters' votes... So it doesn't concern you that her influence has grown enormously and she still has the cf as a piggy bank for donations. Keep your blind faith friend. There is zero evidence to even suggest that any money from the Clinton Foundation has been spent to serve the Clinton family. There is evidence that Trump Foundation spends money on elaborate paintings of Donald Trump. This is despite the fact that the Trump Foundation is 1% the size of the Clinton Foundation. The Clinton Foundation is a charity. The Trump Foundation is under investigation by the state of NY. I have faith in empirical evidence and business ratings. Then why is The NY Times, which endorsed HRC, calling for her to cut ties with it?
For the same reason Trump's business empire is going to be placed in a blind trust of one sort or another?
|
|
|
On October 10 2016 10:05 LegalLord wrote:
Martha Raddatz did pretty good last year with the VP debate, which went pretty well as far as moderation goes. Hopefully this will be good.
And Anderson Cooper, lol.
Anderson Cooper seems to attempt to do a decent job sometimes on CNN. I'll give him a shot
|
Hillary is going to struggle with that high chair. lol
|
That question just kneecapped EVERYTHING Donald wants to do for the rest of the night.
|
Hillary won yet another coin toss, lolz.
Also, those chairs look mighty uncomfortable. I guess they're going to be standing up and walking a lot.
|
Clinton: "We're going to be great, because we're good."
What is this nonsense? She's giving a complete nonsense non-answer on education. Does anyone think she is genuine here?
|
Man, so many generic words.
How was the previous debate rated MA?
|
I'm not so certain Hillary answered the question.
|
I refuse to accept that a question designed to prevent mudslinging was chosen at random to be the first question for the night.
|
On October 10 2016 10:00 Netscape9 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 10 2016 09:59 oBlade wrote:On October 10 2016 09:53 Netscape9 wrote:
Lol at the moderator talking about how they want to "improve" their debates. These people are deliberately gatekeeping Gary Johnson and Jill Stein from the debates to effectively rig the election. Such disgusting conmen. You have to draw a line somewhere. You don't seem to want the Constitution Party on stage, why? What's your criteria? I would draw it at any candidate who is on the ballot on enough states to technically win the election. Or at least draw it at say polling ~3%. They purposely raised the bar to make it impossible for any third party to enter the debates and maintain the two-party system.
It's supposed to be, you can't run a party in the whole country just with 1 presidential candidate. I think ballot access way too low, 3% polls might be too low, end up with a bunch of mini no-chance foiling candidates, but I can see an argument for 15% polling being too high. But I would also remind you that there was Perot, just because there's no three-way debate now doesn't mean never.
|
Hillary isn't wearing a flag pin again!!!! Is blood pouring from the eyes of the right wing media yet?
|
On October 10 2016 10:07 Netscape9 wrote:
Clinton: "We're going to be great, because we're good."
What is this nonsense? She's giving a complete nonsense non-answer on education. Does anyone think she is genuine here?
The question isnt about education?
|
WTF Clinton? You heard the question? Cmon!
She went by "Are you a teacher?" and ignored the entire question.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
