US Elections 2016 Part II: The Debates & General Election

[MCAL]

I literally do not understand what Trump is saying anymore.

Also "I prepared to become president." Now that's a sick burn.

EDIT:
At this point Clinton's pretty much in control. She's basically been unflappable. Meanwhile Trump just can't form a coherent argument. It's a shock this man has people supporting him, but alas.

Of course we should of just taken the oil dammit! LMFAO!!!!!

"I have a much better temperament!" says man who has been yelling for most of the debate.

I don't know why I didn't think of this sooner, but Trump is pretty much Ishiguro from Mob Psycho 100.

The only secret is that he has no plan. Holy crap! Hillary is on fire!

Did... Did Trump just say Hillary's (Completely true) ads about him are not nice.

[Reckoner]

Clinton easily won this debate and Trump utterly disqualified himself. However, it won't matter to Trump's core voters.

[MCAL]

Welp, its over. Now time to describe the debate in three words everyone...

White Man Screams!

[risingstar3110]

Don't think it's going one way or another. Trump got most of the attention and attacks on him, but he managed to recycle the same defense that he always made on campaign trail. His attacks on Hillary however didn't really stick either, and it seemed Hillary just prefer to lay low and let it slide.

Expect each side to declare the victor of the debate later

[MCAL]

Apparently Clinton was too over-prepared.

What the hell does that even mean?!!

[risingstar3110]

Originally Posted by MCAL

Apparently Clinton was too over-prepared.

What the hell does that even mean?!!

Probably means she prepared too many stump speech for too many occasions that it does not sound nature when she recycle it?

[GreyZone]

Originally Posted by Reckoner

Clinton easily won this debate and Trump utterly disqualified himself. However, it won't matter to Trump's core voters.

Confirmation bias. Clinton used the full media machinery to her advantage to push a few irrelevant questions that only the media really care about, but not the people who can still be swayed (if you ask an undecided voter what will make them decide, I am confident that none of them will say "depends on Trump's tax returns") would say, into the debate, which did help her a bit. But on the flip side Trump seemed to have an "inner switch" (going back and forth between bombastic and polite) and managed to throw Clinton off her game multiple times as well thanks to that. Purely from a debating standpoint, I'd say it's a tie, but due to the order of the questions it may appear a bit more positive for Clinton in this case. But overall it looks like one of those debates where both sides will claim victory and the polls will probably continue as if no debate happened, as it didn't seem like either of them really said anything that would sway undecided voters.

Not that it matters that much.
Just ask Romney how "winning" the first debate went for him.

Originally Posted by risingstar3110

Don't think it's going one way or another. Trump got most of the attention and attacks on him, but he managed to recycle the same defense that he always made on campaign trail. His attacks on Hillary however didn't really stick either, and it seemed Hillary just prefer to lay low and let it slide.

Expect each side to declare the victory of the debate later

Yes, though the media which mostly support Clinton will probably try to declare her the winner.

However something most people missed was Trump going 1on1 with Holt. Now he has a justification to attack the moderators at the next debate, something that will actually get him more votes because media have worse approval ratings than either candidate and even congress has. Not to mention Trump already mentioned the fact that he is very dissatisfied for the moderators of his next debate.

But before that we'll first have to get through Pence vs Kaine - the VP debate.

[Brother Coa]

Originally Posted by GDB

Just... wow...

Yup, that's capitalism all right.

Originally Posted by MCAL

Apparently Clinton was too over-prepared.

What the hell does that even mean?!!

It means that she knew exactly what kind of questions she will be asked and she prepared answers for all of them ( giving how much her own foundations funds the media I am not surprised ).

Too bad she was not prepared for Trump's burns. xD

[KiraYamatoFan]

Originally Posted by Reckoner

Clinton easily won this debate and Trump utterly disqualified himself.

Drumpf is the definition of an utter embarrassment based on what he showed of himself tonight. The way he brought up the birther stuff back to the surface, the wheels came off and that was a trainwreck. At one point, I even thought the moderator was going to lay the smack down on him.

Whoever administers his Twitter account even deleted past tweets during the debate.

However, it won't matter to Trump's core voters.

Deplorables.

Now with some humour, have you read Bill Maher's tweet?

Originally Posted by Bill Maher

Word from inside the debate hall is Melania just left with Bill Clinton. #StillGotIt

[Eisdrache]

Originally Posted by Brother Coa

Yup, that's capitalism all right.

Seriously?

Originally Posted by Brother Coa

It means that she knew exactly what kind of questions she will be asked and she prepared answers for all of them ( giving how much her own foundations funds the media I am not surprised ).

Too bad she was not prepared for Trump's burns. xD

Hillary had answers to all the questions because she she is well informed about these topics. Meanwhile Trump when pressed on the specifics of his arguments hardly knows what to say.

[GreyZone]

Originally Posted by Eisdrache

Seriously?

Ask Elizabeth Warren about that. She was appearently very enthusiastic during the time of the crisis.

[Eisdrache]

Let's not move the posts.

Rooting people for the housing crisis is not business (and certainly not capitalism either). It's just deplorable. But obviously it's only so for the media, not the people involved right?

[Brother Coa]

Originally Posted by Eisdrache

Seriously?

Definition of Capitalism by Merriam-Webster:

a way of organizing an economy so that the things that are used to make and transport products (such as land, oil, factories, ships, etc.) are owned by individual people and companies rather than by the government

It does not say anywhere "if a state is in time of crisis you should help it instead of making big juicy profit from it." To true capitalist the profit is all that matters in life. So Trump is right regarding that as true capitalist will make sure to earn profit even if everything aroudn him falls apart.

If you need more proof just look at Rockefeller, Carnegie, Vanderbilt and company. They pretty much defined what capitalism is.

Hillary had answers to all the questions because she she is well informed about these topics. Meanwhile Trump when pressed on the specifics of his arguments hardly knows what to say.

Even if you are well informed on every topic there is no way you could answer as good as she did. She clearly got the qeustion, exact questions she was going to be asked, in advance. Meanwhile Trump's question suspiciously poke him right in his most vulnerable areas, it;s like the people knew where to poke him to make him claim his famous 'famous' statements.

But despite this unbalanced favoritism in media Trump managed to get well and make it a tie. Somehow...

[Harbinger]

Originally Posted by Eisdrache

Let's not move the posts.

Rooting people for the housing crisis is not business (and certainly not capitalism either). It's just deplorable. But obviously it's only so for the media, not the people involved right?

Heh. Some people are willing to make money, no matter the circumstances. It's not like if he caused the bubble to collapsed, he just leeched off and made money from it.

It sounds horrible and all, but it's pretty common sense. Buy low, sell high.

Trump is a seriously flawed candidate, but here, he isn't wrong to want to make money. He didn't cause the crash --- you're directing your disgust towards the wrong person (although it's perfectly normal to feel disgust towards him).

Meanwhile, we learn that Obama has been (potentially) using a pseudonym to contact Hillary on her private server, which means he lied to people when he said he learned about it through the Media. It just further increase the distrust people have towards Hillary...

On one side, you got a "deplorable" person. On the other hand, you got a criminal that is protected by everything imaginable.

You get an immunity. You get an immunity. Everyone gets immunity. Hey, no one was charged for anything.

I'm thankful I don't live in the US. I would totally vote for a third party if I was given a vote.

[Key Board]

I mentioned this before, but Trump seems to think that the US stationing troops around the globe is charity work and out of the goodness of the American heart, and that people should be thankful of this generosity. That's an arrogant way to think of this.

First of all, no. It's done to protect American interests.

And in case of Japan, they have a host country support program that covers 40 percent of the cost. That's about 2 Billion dollars alone. MORE than many allied countries of the US

when you place own troops on allied nations to protect your own interest, and also demand them to pay more. That's just.. well... missing the point and exploitive

edit: this articles elaborates my feelings on this better than I can put into words http://mainichi.jp/english/articles/...0m/0na/017000c

[MCAL]

Originally Posted by Brother Coa

Definition of Capitalism by Merriam-Webster:



It does not say anywhere "if a state is in time of crisis you should help it instead of making big juicy profit from it." To true capitalist the profit is all that matters in life. So Trump is right regarding that as true capitalist will make sure to earn profit even if everything aroudn him falls apart.

If you need more proof just look at Rockefeller, Carnegie, Vanderbilt and company. They pretty much defined what capitalism is.



Even if you are well informed on every topic there is no way you could answer as good as she did. She clearly got the qeustion, exact questions she was going to be asked, in advance. Meanwhile Trump's question suspiciously poke him right in his most vulnerable areas, it;s like the people knew where to poke him to make him claim his famous 'famous' statements.

But despite this unbalanced favoritism in media Trump managed to get well and make it a tie. Somehow...

Or maybe she's actually smart, knows what she's talking about, has the necessary experience to answer such questions and is actually good at debating? Nah...

[risingstar3110]

Originally Posted by Eisdrache

Let's not move the posts.

Rooting people for the housing crisis is not business (and certainly not capitalism either). It's just deplorable. But obviously it's only so for the media, not the people involved right?

There is a reason why we all hate vultures. But honestly, the housing crisis would have gotten even worse if those with money (like Trump in that case)do not swoop in to buy them.

They literally are the only one that have prevented the price of houses during that time to worth more than the piles of bricks. And their pursue of profits (buy low, try to sell high) is the main reason the house price recovers somewhat.


I do hate them through, but mostly because i kinda hate capitalism (kinda). And that was a shining example of how capitalism works

[Reckoner]

I don't get why Trumpsters think that sounding prepared and measured is somehow a bad thing. The anti-intellectualism in this country is pretty dumb.

Originally Posted by GreyZone

Confirmation bias. Clinton used the full media machinery to her advantage to push a few irrelevant questions that only the media really care about, but not the people who can still be swayed (if you ask an undecided voter what will make them decide, I am confident that none of them will say "depends on Trump's tax returns") would say, into the debate, which did help her a bit. But on the flip side Trump seemed to have an "inner switch" (going back and forth between bombastic and polite) and managed to throw Clinton off her game multiple times as well thanks to that. Purely from a debating standpoint, I'd say it's a tie, but due to the order of the questions it may appear a bit more positive for Clinton in this case. But overall it looks like one of those debates where both sides will claim victory and the polls will probably continue as if no debate happened, as it didn't seem like either of them really said anything that would sway undecided voters.

Not that it matters that much.
Just ask Romney how "winning" the first debate went for him.

Romney had an extremely bad few months including the 47% comment leading up the first debate. He also didn't win the second debate. Context matters my friend. Debates do matter, they just aren't the sole deciding factor in elections.

I'm not sure where in the debate you think Trump came ahead over Clinton other than perhaps free trade. From birther question on it was an utter catastrophe. Although I'm sure the Breibart circles will try to put some positive spin on his inclusiveness to let African Americans and Muslims into his million dollar club in Florida. How gracious of him.

[GreyZone]

Originally Posted by Eisdrache

Let's not move the posts.

Rooting people for the housing crisis is not business (and certainly not capitalism either). It's just deplorable. But obviously it's only so for the media, not the people involved right?

No it's not. First of all he didn't wish for it for the reasons you deem his stance deplorable for. He was simply hoping for his own success. Also he didn't CAUSE it. You make it sound like he was guilty.

What about voters who think that Trump is "literally Hitler" and openly say that they "would not mind it" that maybe someone would assassinate Trump. Do you think Clinton would publicly disavow such people and tell them that she doesn't want their vote? I don't think so.

I have made the observation that 99% of cases where people start using "morals" in a political argument it ends up being badly someway or another. "Badly" here means that it either creates confirmation bias (and narrows one's own horizont as well as one's ability to emphasize tremendously) and/or creates hypocrisy when the one who makes the argument eventually ends up doing something of similar nature they used to deem "immoral" for an opponent. So it's much more practical to assume an "egoistic" perspective of different voters with different backgrounds and look who gains the most from each candidate - there is no "universally best candidate". Such people only exist in fiction.





And by the way. I noticed Clinton emptied most of here ammo at this debate. There isn't much left for the next ones. Only thing left is probably "Trump University". The charity wouldn't work that much probably, because bringing up the Clinton Foundation would be the perfect counter to it. On the other hands on Clinton side there are still Benghazi, the "hammering" of the mobile and pad devices, Wall Street Speeches and "The Basket of Deplorables".

Just in this debate alone a lot on Trump's side was already covered, like Trump's companies' bankrupcies, the settled "racist" lawsuit, tax returns, iraq war, birther conspiracy. On Clinton's side we only had "she had 30 times to change something", superpredator comment (very, very briefly), the private email server (very, very briefly) and sexism (very, very briefly).

So looking at issues Trump has an advantage in terms of political "ammo" he can throw at her. If she starts defaulting to pure racism and sexism accusations she will, according the effectiveness of those accusations in the past, lose. Accordingly, if she starts making the election about her, she will lose as well. You could see it in this debate how her mentioning her voting record that, aside from the votes regarding foreign policy, has been mostly ignored. The only things about her political career that seems to matter is what Trump throws at her.

So even IF one considers that Clinton won this debate (which many would disagree with), it would be at best a pyrrhic victory.

Originally Posted by Reckoner

I don't get why Trumpsters think that sounding prepared and measured is somehow a bad thing. The anti-intellectualism in this country is pretty dumb.

But it IS bad if the person you are running against is a candidate who constantly reminds people of the "all talk; no action politicians". The so-called "intellectualism" has become re-branded to "appearing seemingly intelligent and professional, but actually being a completely corrupt and incompetent self-serving elitist". It has become a symbol of arrogance and contempt. Your words are perfectly reflecting this brand. If you assume "I am smart, everyone on the opposing team is dumb", then you are showing cognitive dissonance. Your confirmation bias that made you think you had "figured out how the world works" got confronted by new events that contradict this world-view. Because you don't get what is going on, you just assume those on the opposing teams must be idiots. Actually a little bit empathy would have solved it before it became a problem, but just assuming everyone who disagrees is stupid is the "easy way".

Originally Posted by Reckoner

Romney had an extremely bad few months including the 47% comment leading up the first debate. He also didn't win the second debate. Context matters my friend. Debates do matter, they just aren't the sole deciding factor in elections.

I'm not sure where in the debate you think Trump came ahead over Clinton other than perhaps free trade. From birther question on it was an utter catastrophe. Although I'm sure the Breibart circles will try to put some positive spin on his inclusiveness to let African Americans and Muslims into his million dollar club in Florida. How gracious of him.

He was able to regain his composure multiple times (very important for him to show that) and a few times (early on) Clinton was hesitating a bit how to answer, in clear contrast to Trump who always started off immidietly and decisively. That was pretty good optics for the person who has to make the minute decisions.

[Irenicus]

LMAO you're spinning so hard. Face it darling your God Emperor revealed his true, ugly, pitiful self for one hundred million people to see.

So much so Hillary Clinton even had the time to take off the candidate mode for a moment to do the presidential thing when she made that aside on the NATO and nuclear "debate."

Originally Posted by That Babylonian Whore

Well, let me -- let me start by saying, words matter. Words matter when you run for president. And they really matter when you are president. And I want to reassure our allies in Japan and South Korea and elsewhere that we have mutual defense treaties and we will honor them.

It is essential that America's word be good. And so I know that this campaign has caused some questioning and worries on the part of many leaders across the globe. I've talked with a number of them. But I want to -- on behalf of myself, and I think on behalf of a majority of the American people, say that, you know, our word is good.

The full transcript.

There was one Madame President on stage tonight. Crooked? Liar? Fucking hell there was one bitching liar up there -- literally caught lying multiple times against real-time fact-checking, on record -- and it isn't the scary woman in red.