|
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. |
Gary Johnson knows who Putin is?
|
On October 13 2016 07:06 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On October 13 2016 06:59 Thieving Magpie wrote:On October 13 2016 06:46 Plansix wrote: This election gets more terrifying every day. I don’t even know what the third debate is going to look like. The only word is glorious. The first two debates were like watching SNL skits, so much so that the actual SNL skits after them actually felt MORE like a debate than the debate they were mocking. I can't see how you'd experience anything less than joy watching it. The only part that will be enjoyable is the day after when the polls come how showing Trump lost again. And then re-reading the posts in this thread from all the people claiming he did great. But after November 8, 2016, I'm really concerned that the GOP will just let Trump try to discredit Clintons win for their own political gain.
Even if that's the case unless the defeat is so bad to be a salted earth situation Trump's campaign has made it ok to say things that are easily verifable lies and not be held particularly accountable for it. Even if he loses he's poisoned the well pretty badly.
|
Jill fucking Stein. Her greatest political accomplishment is being elected as a Lexington Town meeting representative. But for some reason she is worth the time of C-SPAN so she can spout non-sense about Russia. She would endorse anyone if it got her headlines. The fact that she is head of the Green Party and is backing Trump, a guy who wants to cut environmental regulations, is the icing on the cake.
|
On October 13 2016 07:15 Logo wrote:Show nested quote +On October 13 2016 07:06 Plansix wrote:On October 13 2016 06:59 Thieving Magpie wrote:On October 13 2016 06:46 Plansix wrote: This election gets more terrifying every day. I don’t even know what the third debate is going to look like. The only word is glorious. The first two debates were like watching SNL skits, so much so that the actual SNL skits after them actually felt MORE like a debate than the debate they were mocking. I can't see how you'd experience anything less than joy watching it. The only part that will be enjoyable is the day after when the polls come how showing Trump lost again. And then re-reading the posts in this thread from all the people claiming he did great. But after November 8, 2016, I'm really concerned that the GOP will just let Trump try to discredit Clintons win for their own political gain. Even if that's the case unless the defeat is so bad to be a salted earth situation Trump's campaign has made it ok to say things that are easily verifable lies and not be held particularly accountable for it. Even if he loses he's poisoned the well pretty badly. To extend that analogy a bit, we luckily don't all drink from the same well
|
On October 13 2016 07:15 Logo wrote:Show nested quote +On October 13 2016 07:06 Plansix wrote:On October 13 2016 06:59 Thieving Magpie wrote:On October 13 2016 06:46 Plansix wrote: This election gets more terrifying every day. I don’t even know what the third debate is going to look like. The only word is glorious. The first two debates were like watching SNL skits, so much so that the actual SNL skits after them actually felt MORE like a debate than the debate they were mocking. I can't see how you'd experience anything less than joy watching it. The only part that will be enjoyable is the day after when the polls come how showing Trump lost again. And then re-reading the posts in this thread from all the people claiming he did great. But after November 8, 2016, I'm really concerned that the GOP will just let Trump try to discredit Clintons win for their own political gain. Even if that's the case unless the defeat is so bad to be a salted earth situation Trump's campaign has made it ok to say things that are easily verifable lies and not be held particularly accountable for it. Even if he loses he's poisoned the well pretty badly.
Personally, I wish we had politicians pushing for implementation of a body designed to punish candidates for direct lies (e.g. "I won all the post-debate polls" or "I didn't tweet to check out a sex tape" or "crime/murder is at its highest in 45 years" or "Sanders wasn't there to help me with healthcare reform in the 90s").
They should have to at least pay money for lying out their ass, if not be forced to give a retraction. This isn't even fact checker stuff, it's just reality. And no, hyperbole and exaggeration is not an excuse for anyone with an audience of millions.
Pharmaceutical companies may have to pay to create entire new commercials if they get caught in misleading claims. Politicians just go on and have their morning coffee after directly lying to millions of people.
|
On October 13 2016 07:16 Plansix wrote:Jill fucking Stein. Her greatest political accomplishment is being elected as a Lexington Town meeting representative. But for some reason she is worth the time of C-SPAN so she can spout non-sense about Russia. She would endorse anyone if it got her headlines. The fact that she is head of the Green Party and is backing Trump, a guy who wants to cut environmental regulations, is the icing on the cake.
I don't see how she is backing Trump. She sides with him on this one issue, that's all. She wants people to vote for her.
|
On October 13 2016 07:20 TheTenthDoc wrote:Show nested quote +On October 13 2016 07:15 Logo wrote:On October 13 2016 07:06 Plansix wrote:On October 13 2016 06:59 Thieving Magpie wrote:On October 13 2016 06:46 Plansix wrote: This election gets more terrifying every day. I don’t even know what the third debate is going to look like. The only word is glorious. The first two debates were like watching SNL skits, so much so that the actual SNL skits after them actually felt MORE like a debate than the debate they were mocking. I can't see how you'd experience anything less than joy watching it. The only part that will be enjoyable is the day after when the polls come how showing Trump lost again. And then re-reading the posts in this thread from all the people claiming he did great. But after November 8, 2016, I'm really concerned that the GOP will just let Trump try to discredit Clintons win for their own political gain. Even if that's the case unless the defeat is so bad to be a salted earth situation Trump's campaign has made it ok to say things that are easily verifable lies and not be held particularly accountable for it. Even if he loses he's poisoned the well pretty badly. Personally, I wish we had politicians pushing for implementation of a body designed to punish candidates for direct lies (e.g. "I won all the post-debate polls" or "I didn't tweet to check out a sex tape" or "crime/murder is at its highest in 45 years" or "Sanders wasn't there to help me with healthcare reform in the 90s"). They should have to at least pay money for lying out their ass, if not be forced to give a retraction. This isn't even fact checker stuff, it's just reality. And no, hyperbole and exaggeration is not an excuse for anyone with an audience of millions. Pharmaceutical companies may have to pay to create entire new commercials if they get caught in misleading claims. Politicians just go on and have their morning coffee after directly lying to millions of people.
At the very least I'd like debate moderators willing to hold up the debate for however long is necessary to get the candidate to admit to reality rather than getting a pass. And newspapers where the fact that someone lies is the headline rather than a parting correction.
|
Clinton actually got some tougher questions in the second debate, compared to the first there wasn't a single question that was aimed at her. Chris Wallace is probably the best out of all of these amateurs and will ask tough questions to both of them.
|
On October 13 2016 07:34 biology]major wrote: Clinton actually got some tougher questions in the second debate, compared to the first there wasn't a single question that was aimed at her. Chris Wallace is probably the best out of all of these amateurs and will ask tough questions to both of them. Radditz and Cooper, true amateurs compared to the paragon of professionalism that is Sean Hannity
|
On October 13 2016 07:47 Nevuk wrote:Show nested quote +On October 13 2016 07:34 biology]major wrote: Clinton actually got some tougher questions in the second debate, compared to the first there wasn't a single question that was aimed at her. Chris Wallace is probably the best out of all of these amateurs and will ask tough questions to both of them. Radditz and Cooper, true amateurs compared to the paragon of professionalism that is Sean Hannity
Chris Wallace and Bret Baier actually don't seem that bad at all compared to Hannity and others. I don't really expect all that bad of a debate.
|
Donald J. Trump was emphatic in the second presidential debate: Yes, he had boasted about kissing women without permission and grabbing their genitals. But he had never actually done those things, he said.
“No,” he declared under questioning on Sunday evening, “I have not.”
At that moment, sitting at home in Manhattan, Jessica Leeds, 74, felt he was lying to her face. “I wanted to punch the screen,” she said in an interview in her apartment.
More than three decades ago, when she was a traveling businesswoman at a paper company, Ms. Leeds said, she sat beside Mr. Trump in the first-class cabin of a flight to New York. They had never met before.
About 45 minutes after takeoff, she recalled, Mr. Trump lifted the armrest and began to touch her.
According to Ms. Leeds, Mr. Trump grabbed her breasts and tried to put his hand up her skirt.
“He was like an octopus,” she said. “His hands were everywhere.”
She fled to the back of the plane. “It was an assault,” she said.
Ms. Leeds has told the story to at least four people close to her, who also spoke with The New York Times.
Mr. Trump’s claim that his crude words had never turned into actions was similarly infuriating to a woman watching on Sunday night in Ohio: Rachel Crooks.
Ms. Crooks was a 22-year-old receptionist at Bayrock Group, a real estate investment and development company in Trump Tower in Manhattan, when she encountered Mr. Trump outside an elevator in the building one morning in 2005.
Aware that her company did business with Mr. Trump, she turned and introduced herself. They shook hands, but Mr. Trump would not let go, she said. Instead, he began kissing her cheeks. Then, she said, he “kissed me directly on the mouth.”
It didn’t feel like an accident, she said. It felt like a violation.
“It was so inappropriate,” Ms. Crooks recalled in an interview. “I was so upset that he thought I was so insignificant that he could do that.”
Shaken, Ms. Crooks returned to her desk and immediately called her sister, Brianne Webb, in the small town in Ohio where they grew up, and told her what had happened.
“She was very worked up about it,” said Ms. Webb, who recalled pressing her sister for details. “Being from a town of 1,600 people, being naïve, I was like ‘Are you sure he didn’t just miss trying to kiss you on the cheek?’ She said, ‘No, he kissed me on the mouth.’ I was like, ‘That is not normal.’”
In the days since Mr. Trump’s campaign was jolted by a 2005 recording that caught him bragging about pushing himself on women, he has insisted, as have his aides, that it was simply macho bluster. “It’s just words,” he has said repeatedly.
Source
|
|
Surprised that anyone is still clinging to Donald "The Titanic" Trump. I guess the establishment has claimed all the lifeboats.
|
On October 13 2016 08:06 Doodsmack wrote: Surprised that anyone is still clinging to Donald "The Titanic" Trump. I guess the establishment has claimed all the lifeboats. I think that this is such a unique situation that people are not fully grasping just how unique it is. The idea of not supporting a republican running against Clinton must feel like such an utterly ridiculous and unthinkable thing that people are having a hard time seeing "Wait, maybe this situation is so utterly fucked up that yes, it actually *does* make sense". And it is understandable. Voting for a republican feels absurd to me.
I can't imagine a situation where I'd vote for a republican. But what if Ja Rule was the democratic nominee? Michael Moore? Maybe I actually would vote R. It's hard to put myself in a situation where my nominee was truly unqualified and had absolutely no business being president under any circumstances. But that's what they got. This has never happened before and likely never will again. Its just such a bizarre situation and I think people aren't giving enough credit to how fucked up this whole thing is.
|
I would absolutely vote for Ja Rule.
|
I think one interesting thing about this comment was that it shows again that Trump has no self-awareness of any kind. I'm very sure that someone said to him before the debate : "don't say anything that the media can recycle as a five second soundbite that's going to make you look bad" and yet Donald couldn't help himself.
No matter what Obama thinks you'd never just see him blurt something stupid out accidentally.
|
On October 13 2016 08:14 farvacola wrote: I would absolutely vote for Ja Rule.
If it was Kasich vs Ja Rule, would you, though? Kasich goes against everything I believe it, but he would keep the lights on.
|
Just imagine in a rational world if Huntsman was the GOP star.
|
Holy shit this thread moves fast
|
On October 13 2016 08:27 riotjune wrote: Holy shit this thread moves fast While at the same time, going absolutely nowhere
|
|
|
|