| 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. | ||
|
Logo
United States7542 Posts
It seemed so unprompted and unprovoked especially since what Clinton was saying was really tame compared to the other jabs Clinton had taken over the debate. I also didn't understand calling Clinton out on pivoting about Open Boarders? She addressed what she meant (whether or not it was actually what she meant) by saying she was talking about Open boarders for energy. I guess it's still a pivot, but both the moderator and Trump acted like she didn't address the question at all. | ||
|
zlefin
United States7689 Posts
Reminds me of a basic balance problem in democracy: balancing making all voices be heard and represented, and filtering out the stupid/crazy. | ||
|
FiWiFaKi
Canada9859 Posts
I would hope not, but at this point, the US feels like a one-party system with the Republicans being a bit of a joke since like year 2000. | ||
|
jalstar
United States8198 Posts
But that's much harder to explain than "I was talking about energy" | ||
|
OuchyDathurts
United States4588 Posts
On October 20 2016 12:01 plasmidghost wrote: The Republicans could have had an easy victory with Rand Paul as the nominee, what a shame Rand Paul would have gotten destroyed. Libertarian policies are indefensible. Hillary would have ate his lunch. | ||
|
TheTenthDoc
United States9561 Posts
On October 20 2016 12:02 Logo wrote: What was the prompt for the "Nasty Woman" remark? It seemed so unprompted and unprovoked especially since what Clinton was saying was really tame compared to the other jabs Clinton had taken over the debate. I also didn't understand calling Clinton out on pivoting about Open Boarders? She addressed what she meant (whether or not it was actually what she meant) by saying she was talking about Open boarders for energy. I guess it's still a pivot, but both the moderator and Trump acted like she didn't address the question at all. She pointed out something true about him outsourcing jobs or other shitty business dealings to prompt the remark, I think. Trump didn't call her out because he didn't read the rest of the speech and couldn't contradict her/knows nothing about policy. The moderator didn't press her because I he didn't press them to answer most of the questions unless they got really dodgy. And technically she answered the question a lot more than others (I also suspect he hadn't read the rest of the speech either and didn't want egg on his face). On October 20 2016 12:04 jalstar wrote: What I got from that email is that she did eventually want open borders for the western hemisphere, the implication being that it would be after all the countries had developed to first world standards of living. But that's much harder to explain than "I was talking about energy" I was super amazed she didn't just go for that, actually. "It's a dream, I said it was a dream, in a perfect world we wouldn't have to worry about borders and could have free-flowing capitalism...just like Donald's writer said in that op-ed he signed his name on" | ||
|
DarkPlasmaBall
United States46150 Posts
On October 20 2016 11:54 BallinWitStalin wrote: I wonder how long he planned that joke for Probably for about six years, ever since he saw her in a pre-teen beauty pageant. | ||
|
zlefin
United States7689 Posts
On October 20 2016 12:03 FiWiFaKi wrote: So, is there anyway that Hillary can win re-election in 2020? I would hope not, but at this point, the US feels like a one-party system with the Republicans being a bit of a joke since like year 2000. too early to say. A lot depends on what the economy looks like in a few years, and what legislative accomplishments she gets done, if any. | ||
|
Stratos_speAr
United States6959 Posts
On October 20 2016 12:03 FiWiFaKi wrote: So, is there anyway that Hillary can win re-election in 2020? I would hope not, but at this point, the US feels like a one-party system with the Republicans being a bit of a joke since like year 2000. 2020 is in 4 years. The people making far-flung predictions are off their rocker. The Republican party may be able to pull their shit together and put up a decent candidate. Alternatively, if the next 4 years actually go well for America and the economy, then it'll be hard to argue why we should replace Clinton. Only time will tell. | ||
|
iPlaY.NettleS
Australia4426 Posts
On October 20 2016 12:01 plasmidghost wrote: The Republicans could have had an easy victory with Rand Paul as the nominee, what a shame Not as good as his father but still far superior to any of the current candidates. | ||
|
Dan HH
Romania9217 Posts
On October 20 2016 12:02 Logo wrote: What was the prompt for the "Nasty Woman" remark? It seemed so unprompted and unprovoked especially since what Clinton was saying was really tame compared to the other jabs Clinton had taken over the debate. I also didn't understand calling Clinton out on pivoting about Open Boarders? She addressed what she meant (whether or not it was actually what she meant) by saying she was talking about Open boarders for energy. I guess it's still a pivot, but both the moderator and Trump acted like she didn't address the question at all. She took a swipe at him not paying income tax, though I'm not sure if he said 'nasty woman' or 'nasty one' | ||
|
DarkPlasmaBall
United States46150 Posts
On October 20 2016 12:02 Logo wrote: What was the prompt for the "Nasty Woman" remark? The fact that Hillary brought up his dodging of paying taxes. | ||
|
oBlade
United States6274 Posts
On October 20 2016 12:00 TheTenthDoc wrote: I think Trump will just run again in 2020 and we'll get to see more debates of him vs. Clinton to be honest. Unless the establishment doesn't run 5 people at once and just combines forces he can probably win the primaries even if he was wheelchair bound and drooling. He'd be 74, wouldn't have the steam to win the primaries. But the time of people getting the nomination more than once is over, really. They all just kept losing. The last multiple nominee to win was Nixon. | ||
|
FiWiFaKi
Canada9859 Posts
On October 20 2016 12:04 OuchyDathurts wrote: Rand Paul would have gotten destroyed. Libertarian policies are indefensible. Hillary would have ate his lunch. Yeah, some libertarian ideas are pretty neat... It's just problematic, since they can all be refuted so easily with an emotional argument that doesn't have merit with the average demographic. | ||
|
OuchyDathurts
United States4588 Posts
On October 20 2016 12:02 Logo wrote: What was the prompt for the "Nasty Woman" remark? It seemed so unprompted and unprovoked especially since what Clinton was saying was really tame compared to the other jabs Clinton had taken over the debate. I also didn't understand calling Clinton out on pivoting about Open Boarders? She addressed what she meant (whether or not it was actually what she meant) by saying she was talking about Open boarders for energy. I guess it's still a pivot, but both the moderator and Trump acted like she didn't address the question at all. He made a small jab about him not being able to figure something out or something along those lines. One of her quips that have triggered the shit out of him all 3 debates. But he went full moron with that. | ||
|
iPlaY.NettleS
Australia4426 Posts
On October 20 2016 12:03 FiWiFaKi wrote: So, is there anyway that Hillary can win re-election in 2020? I would hope not, but at this point, the US feels like a one-party system with the Republicans being a bit of a joke since like year 2000. People thought Venezuela was a one party system too.... Check out the socialist partys popularity nowdays... | ||
|
Stratos_speAr
United States6959 Posts
On October 20 2016 12:05 FiWiFaKi wrote: Yeah, some libertarian ideas are pretty neat... It's just problematic, since they can all be refuted so easily with an emotional argument that doesn't have merit with the average demographic. Or by just looking at reality. Libertarian ideas are born out of an extremely privileged fantasy land that isn't rooted in any reality whatsoever. There's a reason they aren't actually popular with the population at large, and it isn't just emotional. | ||
|
Dan HH
Romania9217 Posts
On October 20 2016 12:03 FiWiFaKi wrote: So, is there anyway that Hillary can win re-election in 2020? I would hope not, but at this point, the US feels like a one-party system with the Republicans being a bit of a joke since like year 2000. I mean Bush won a 2nd term, so of course she could. Depends who Republicans can come up with, cause no one from this year's crop was up to snuff | ||
|
FiWiFaKi
Canada9859 Posts
On October 20 2016 12:07 iPlaY.NettleS wrote: People thought Venezuela was a one party system too.... Check out the socialist partys popularity nowdays... I mean one party system in that I'd rather have anarchy than to have someone like Cruz... And then you're only left with one "reasonable" choice. It's because there's such a difference between the populace... If you're part of one populace, then the other choice is just so bad. And I mean one-party over a generation or whatever, until the party figures what's up, and catches up with the times. | ||
|
OuchyDathurts
United States4588 Posts
On October 20 2016 12:07 Stratos_speAr wrote: Or by just looking at reality. Libertarian ideas are born out of an extremely privileged fantasy land that isn't rooted in any reality whatsoever. There's a reason they aren't actually popular with the population at large, and it isn't just emotional. This is exactly right. On paper they have some amazing ideas. But those ideas ONLY work on paper, they don't actually pan out in the real world. Under the slightest of scrutiny they fall to pieces and Hillary would have zero issue poking Rand's ideas full of holes. | ||
| ||
StarCraft 2 StarCraft: Brood War Counter-Strike Super Smash Bros Other Games |
|
The PondCast
HomeStory Cup
Replay Cast
HomeStory Cup
Replay Cast
HomeStory Cup
OSC
Sparkling Tuna Cup
WardiTV Weekly
The PondCast
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/4hXgwUV.png)
