Author Topic: US Presidential Debate Thread  (Read 1613 times)

Offline halfelite

  • Member
  • Posts: 1615
Re: US Presidential Debate Thread
« Reply #20 on: October 10, 2016, 05:44:01 pm »
Last nights debate had to be the most lopsided debate of them all. Martha Raddatz debated with Trump over his foreign policy, a moderator is not there to debate. I was happy to see him call them out on it and why it was 3 against 1. Other then that nothing useful came out of it same old same old from both candidates. 

Offline Natusake

  • Member
  • Posts: 7
Re: US Presidential Debate Thread
« Reply #21 on: October 11, 2016, 03:45:58 am »
The debate was pretty funny, and yeah, the moderators were biased as heck.

They even began arguing for Clinton. One of the first points made in the debate was a point made by one of the moderators.

Overall, Trump did much better than last time. Since debates are only really about zingers I guess he won.

Offline Tanis

  • Member
  • Posts: 3242
Re: US Presidential Debate Thread
« Reply #22 on: October 11, 2016, 05:28:45 am »
The bar for Trump is so low that him not shitty himself on stage is considered a win?

Offline halfelite

  • Member
  • Posts: 1615
Re: US Presidential Debate Thread
« Reply #23 on: October 11, 2016, 07:08:03 am »
The bar for Trump is so low that him not shitty himself on stage is considered a win?

You have it backwards. Think of it this way the bar is so low for Hilary all she has to do is win a debate against Trump yet she keeps failing time and time again. Everyone is so hard up on Trump trying to put him to much higher standards then what he is when he calls it how he sees it, he is a babbling idiot when it comes to debates but the other side cant even pull out a win.

Offline metro.

  • Member
  • Posts: 11203
  • notesonhowtolive.
Re: US Presidential Debate Thread
« Reply #24 on: October 11, 2016, 07:30:16 am »
The issue is that if you truly believe what you're saying, that Trump was the winner, has been the winner, will be the winner, and that you agree with his opinion of Clinton, or perhaps more relevantly the Clintons as we've seen this race attempt to pull Bill back into the spotlight.

If you agree with all of that, if you are a base Trump voter than this debate, the last two debates in fact, shouldn't give you hope. It might placate the little voice inside your head telling you to hate Hillary, or to hate the idea of liberals having control over the country, but unfortunately Trump has done what Bibi Netanyahu did last election cycle; sold the idea that hate will prevail over unity. It worked in Isreal then, and perhaps it would have worked in America 2 years ago even, but who Trump needs to convince to vote for him at this point isn't his base. They're on board, he needs to sway his detractors, and to do that he needs to drop the act. He needs to be a real person, and he needs to stop getting angry at everything and everyone that has the audacity to oppose him.

Which honestly I don't think will happen, I don't think he has the discipline to stop his knee jerk reaction of anger and outrage when someone says something he doesn't like. I don't think that he can quell his apparent hatred for everything liberal and I don't think he has the political platform to sell a convincing idea to those skeptical that he can pull off running a country. We've seen it during this tragically long election term, and all evidence that we've seen of his personal and professional life before this attempt at public office, has not been one of a steady hand of business, but instead one that flits from idea to idea, in an attempt to cash out quickly and move on to other things.

Not an endearing business practice if you ask me, not that it doesn't have the potential to be profitable, but it hasn't for him, as the biggest valuable asset he has is "his name", which is not really a solid asset, nor an easily definable one, but it also doesn't transition well from the business world to the political one.

Hell, even Fox News is wondering what the plan is.

at the movies drunk & young

Offline Natusake

  • Member
  • Posts: 7
Re: US Presidential Debate Thread
« Reply #25 on: October 11, 2016, 07:58:25 am »
I have no idea how anyone can hold the position that Trump advances a proposition of hate without being entirely disingenuous. I don't approve of a large part of what Trump advocates but let's distance ourselves from silly hyperbolic caricatures about him and his opinions. This is not about hate, and it never was. Trump and his voter base advocate policy based on the idea that we value our own prosperity over the prosperity of others. That is all. Trump doesn't scream at people or exhibit much action that is reflective of hatred. Where is this coming from?

Also, I doubt very much that his modus operandi was impulse and only sought short-run profit. Entrepreneurs must necessarily value profit in the long-run over profit in the short-run, since every business, at some level, has to invest capital at the preset with the expectation of future profits. Otherwise, it is preferable to be an employee because profits are immediate because you don't need to invest first. I mean, Trump would have failed spectacularly at the '08 recession if he was really so impulsive.

Offline Tiffanys

  • Member
  • Posts: 10255
  • real female girl ojō-sama
Re: US Presidential Debate Thread
« Reply #26 on: October 11, 2016, 09:25:52 am »
I have no idea how anyone can hold the position that Trump advances a proposition of hate without being entirely disingenuous. I don't approve of a large part of what Trump advocates but let's distance ourselves from silly hyperbolic caricatures about him and his opinions. This is not about hate, and it never was. Trump and his voter base advocate policy based on the idea that we value our own prosperity over the prosperity of others. That is all. Trump doesn't scream at people or exhibit much action that is reflective of hatred. Where is this coming from?

Also, I doubt very much that his modus operandi was impulse and only sought short-run profit. Entrepreneurs must necessarily value profit in the long-run over profit in the short-run, since every business, at some level, has to invest capital at the preset with the expectation of future profits. Otherwise, it is preferable to be an employee because profits are immediate because you don't need to invest first. I mean, Trump would have failed spectacularly at the '08 recession if he was really so impulsive.
It seems to me like the burden of proof should be on you. Have you even attempted to do any kind of research?

Google everything Trump has said about blacks, Muslims, and Mexicans. Off the top of my head, he generalized all Mexicans as murderers and rapists. He's said some pretty ignorantly racist things about blacks. He wants to outright ban Muslims from our country.

Trump isn't pandering to the traditional GOP base. He's pandering to the Authoritarian right. Authoritarians generally try to scare people and tell them that only they can protect them, and giving them scapegoats to worry about. It's literally what Hitler did. But, this should explain it better than I can:

I do think it's a really dangerous time in the world's history though. I watched a pretty interesting interview that Thom Hartmann had about a month ago on why people were supporting Trump. It's not because they like some rich bigoted moron that insults everyone and is entertaining. It's because he's tapping into an Authoritarian right that nobody really realized existed in the US. People that have authoritarian personalities are the ones voting for him. That's a very dangerous thing because it was the same type of authoritarianism across Europe that gave rise to Hitler. So, it is a very dangerous time in our history.

read: click the link and watch the video

Offline metro.

  • Member
  • Posts: 11203
  • notesonhowtolive.
Re: US Presidential Debate Thread
« Reply #27 on: October 11, 2016, 09:27:12 am »
Let's take the most recent example of his hate.

He said that it was okay to "grab her by the pussy" because he was famous, and no one would say it was wrong. I'm a warm blooded 22 year old and I don't think that's okay.

Let's go back to when he said that Judge Gonzalo Curiel was biased against him because he was of Mexican heritage. Even mother fucking Paul Ryan said, and I quote:

"I disavow these comments," the Wisconsin Republican said. "Claiming a person can’t do the job because of their race is sort of like the textbook definition of a racist comment. I think that should be absolutely disavowed. It’s absolutely unacceptable."

Paul Ryan eats bullets for breakfast and reads the bible in his off time, that boy doesn't get more Republican, and even he doesn't think that's okay.



Homie I'm not insane, I'm just confused. There are countless examples of his failed businesses, and if you wanna talk about long term profit, you're right, you do have to have income, it's important to remember that while he has inherited a tidy sum of money, which is a defense and bankruptcy. But perhaps most worryingly is that he straight up lies about things he's said and done. He flops around on his opinions of people and policy, which is totally fine is an individual, but not as a politician.



BUT HEY FUCK IT LET'S LIGHT AMERICA ON FIRE

at the movies drunk & young

Offline Ixarku

  • Member
  • Posts: 5867
  • (V)_|*,,,*|_(V)
Re: US Presidential Debate Thread
« Reply #28 on: October 11, 2016, 12:16:14 pm »
I have no idea how anyone can hold the position that Trump advances a proposition of hate without being entirely disingenuous.

I don't know what election you've been paying attention to, but it isn't this one.  Even the man's own party disavows him.  He has gotten where he is in this election cycle almost solely on the basis of personality and bluster.  And he's just as much a blowhard now as he was in past elections; the difference this time is that the Republican party underestimated him, to their woe.
If I ever meet God in person, I'm going to ask Him why he created so many stupid people, and then punch Him in the nose before he answers.

Offline surdumil

  • Member
  • Posts: 1660
  • Yeah! I'm lookin' at you!
Re: US Presidential Debate Thread
« Reply #29 on: October 11, 2016, 02:56:28 pm »
It's quite interesting how Russia is influencing the American election at Trump's behest, and that Americans seem okay with that.

Offline halfelite

  • Member
  • Posts: 1615
Re: US Presidential Debate Thread
« Reply #30 on: October 11, 2016, 06:27:50 pm »
It seems to me like the burden of proof should be on you. Have you even attempted to do any kind of research?

Google everything Trump has said about blacks, Muslims, and Mexicans. Off the top of my head, he generalized all Mexicans as murderers and rapists. He's said some pretty ignorantly racist things about blacks. He wants to outright ban Muslims from our country.

Trump isn't pandering to the traditional GOP base. He's pandering to the Authoritarian right. Authoritarians generally try to scare people and tell them that only they can protect them, and giving them scapegoats to worry about. It's literally what Hitler did. But, this should explain it better than I can:

I do think it's a really dangerous time in the world's history though. I watched a pretty interesting interview that Thom Hartmann had about a month ago on why people were supporting Trump. It's not because they like some rich bigoted moron that insults everyone and is entertaining. It's because he's tapping into an Authoritarian right that nobody really realized existed in the US. People that have authoritarian personalities are the ones voting for him. That's a very dangerous thing because it was the same type of authoritarianism across Europe that gave rise to Hitler. So, it is a very dangerous time in our history.

read: click the link and watch the video

Not sure how old you might be but this is not something new with authoritarianism and minorities. During the 1950's there was a term used a lot called white flight. This is where working white middle class citizens would move large numbers if a minority moved into the neighborhood. So while Trump taps into some racist people he hits a lot of core values not based on racism but more on the facts of life. Neighborhood that are primarily minorities lose value fast and its not about skin color but more about the values that comes along with it. Take the African American culture in the US. Compare it to the African American culture in say Europe and you will notice a huge difference. In the US we have ebonics they dont do that over there. They dont want to assimilate their culture with the rest of the US. While they want equality they want to be different and no one should be like them.

So yes Trump does strike cords in racists minds he also strikes cords with people that are not racist but go off what they have seen first hand. Some of the things that come out of his mouth I just shake my head at. His terms are to broad. It should be ban all illegal Mexicans or let them get legal. As a lot of the US is tired of paying for people that dont contribute in taxes. Where Obama kept adding things like health care for non tax paying people. Same with Muslims/refugees If you poll America most dont want to ban all Muslims but they are fine blocking all refugees from Syria. You have two sides of complete opposites. Hilary will keep going with most of Obama's path and Trump is going the complete opposite direction. If only he could speak in an educated matter about doing it, it would be a lot better.

I dont think he will win. But I also dont want Hilary to win. My comment was more based on if say it was Obama vs Trump in an election Obama would have destroyed Trump at every debate like he did Romney. But here you have Hilary Clinton that cant pull out a sure looking victory at a debate with a guy that throws tantrums like a 5 year old.

Offline surdumil

  • Member
  • Posts: 1660
  • Yeah! I'm lookin' at you!
Re: US Presidential Debate Thread
« Reply #31 on: October 11, 2016, 07:21:18 pm »
Sorry but you are not allowed to view spoiler contents.

Hmm... This was troll-ish and should be ignored, I realized in retrospect.  My apologies.
« Last Edit: October 11, 2016, 07:31:49 pm by surdumil »

Offline Nikkoru

  • Member
  • Posts: 5890
  • Cyberpun
Re: US Presidential Debate Thread
« Reply #32 on: October 11, 2016, 08:30:12 pm »
Sorry but you are not allowed to view spoiler contents.

Hmm... This was troll-ish and should be ignored, I realized in retrospect.  My apologies.

Not really, the Nazi-parallels have been noted quite a bit by Trump critics. His authoritarian demagoguery has brought out the worst aspects of the American Right and is the most alarming thing about his campaign.

However, it's probably more fair to compare him to Nixon. They've got similar rhetoric about a Silent Majority yearning for Law & Order with more than a subtle hint of racism underlying them. Only with Trump -- it's 2016 with the accompanying demographics and mores, he's not nearly as competent as Nixon in basically every respect aside from his gifted capacity for showmanship and media adeptness, he has a hyper-masculine braggadocio about him which feels more tin-pot dictator than Nixon, and he's almost completely incapable of compromising with other Republicans who would've formed his inevitable power-base in the fantasy world where he gets elected much less Democrats due his nature and the sharp partisan divide that he's specifically tapped into. Which makes him ideal to play the role of arsonist-in-chief.
Peace, Love, and Tranquility

Offline surdumil

  • Member
  • Posts: 1660
  • Yeah! I'm lookin' at you!
Re: US Presidential Debate Thread
« Reply #33 on: October 11, 2016, 08:51:46 pm »
Ah, okay.  That makes sense of some of the pundit commentary I've seen lately.
The Nixon comments went over my head.
The tin-pot dictator is ringing loud and true, though, especially with his threat tactic during the second debate.
It seem evident that some public support is there for that sort of thing, from the audience reaction.

Offline undetz

  • Member
  • Posts: 3553
Re: US Presidential Debate Thread
« Reply #34 on: October 11, 2016, 10:16:55 pm »
This seems mildly relevant.


Offline Ixarku

  • Member
  • Posts: 5867
  • (V)_|*,,,*|_(V)
Re: US Presidential Debate Thread
« Reply #35 on: October 12, 2016, 12:53:07 am »
Sorry but you are not allowed to view spoiler contents.

Hmm... This was troll-ish and should be ignored, I realized in retrospect.  My apologies.

Not really, the Nazi-parallels have been noted quite a bit by Trump critics. His authoritarian demagoguery has brought out the worst aspects of the American Right and is the most alarming thing about his campaign.

And some folks welcome his would-be authoritarianism.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/10/11/politics/paul-lepage-authoritarian-power/index.html

Oh, the ironing is delicious.  Apparently we need an authoritarian to trample on our rights in order to restore our democratic Constitution (which to the best of my knowledge, remains legally in effect) and to save us from a duly elected President who's leaving office in a few months.

...I mean, holy shit, do some of our politicians have any sort of filter between their brains and their mouths?!  It boggles me sometimes that these guys get through life without hurting themselves, much less end up in a position of authority.
If I ever meet God in person, I'm going to ask Him why he created so many stupid people, and then punch Him in the nose before he answers.

Offline Natusake

  • Member
  • Posts: 7
Re: US Presidential Debate Thread
« Reply #36 on: October 12, 2016, 01:42:32 am »
"Grab her by the pussy", oh yes, very hateful... but is he really expressing hate at all in this comment? No... he isn't. Disrespectful and distasteful though it may be, this isn't hateful one bit. Nor did he ever generalize all Mexicans in his announcement statement. He literally follows up his remark by saying that "and some, I'm sure, are good people", which should make it clear that he is not saying what you're trying to tell him that he's saying at all.

The comment on Judge Gonzalo Curiel was based on Trump's supposition that he was being treated unfairly, which was supported by Trump's lawyers. The logic here is that someone of Mexican heritage might have a conflict of interest if he is overseeing a case against someone who has views on immigration as Trump does. Does this really amount to hate? Not really. Is it not an understandable defense given the position Trump is in? I think so. Is it actually true? Maybe, maybe not, but that isn't the point of contention.

Trump never advocated for banning Muslims from the US. He advocated for banning Muslim immigration. Those are two very different things, and not one of them are necessarily racist. For instance, he could be advocating for this on the basis that some people within this demographic are violent murderers. That is a policy proposal based against violence, not on religion alone. He isn't against Muslim immigration because the immigration is Muslim, he's a against Muslim immigration because some Muslims are extremely violent people. He is not saying that they are violent because they are Muslim. That certainly would be racism. He simply recognizes that some are Muslim and violent.

He indeed has had failed businesses. These are a drop in the bucket compared to his successful businesses. 80% of new businesses fail. With that in mind is Trump really that bad of a businessman? Yes, he did have an inheritance, and loans from his father, but just having some money isn't what makes you a successful entrepreneur. Lottery winners often go broke. Money isn't a magical thing that multiplies on its own. Having a few million dollars doesn't mean that you will get a few billion down the road inasmuch as having few hundred dollars won't mean that you will get a few thousand down the road. It all depends on how you choose to use that money.

But how, in the end, are any of these necessarily hateful? So Trump said some rude things, Trump advocated for limiting immigration, and so on. Nobody has yet made the argument that these things must be hateful. Until you can, bringing any of these things up as evidence is but a peripheral piece of data that has no bearing on your central thesis. How, moreover, do a small amount of business failures, especially with regard to other business successes, necessarily indicate that he flits from idea to idea?

There have been two central theses presented here. The first is that Trump is hateful, the second is that he is impulsive. The evidence given for the first has either been disconnected from the main point or a gross misinterpretation. The evidence for the second has been the same.

Quote
BUT HEY FUCK IT LET'S LIGHT AMERICA ON FIRE

This is another assumption that has yet to be shown. All that can be known of the results of Trump's presidency are his policy proposals. The rest is baseless speculation. How, then, are his policy proposals so bad as to "light America on fire", as it were? Everyone loves to point on what Trump says, and then jump to the conclusion that he must be a bad president based on this. What they don't realize is that the only thing dictating how good or bad a president you will be are the necessary results of the policies that you advocate versus that of the other candidate. Everything else is peripheral nonsense and speculation. Too often I see people only attacking his character, not what actually matters. So please, if you will, explain what those necessary results are.

Offline Nikkoru

  • Member
  • Posts: 5890
  • Cyberpun
Re: US Presidential Debate Thread
« Reply #37 on: October 12, 2016, 02:52:55 am »
Oh, the ironing is delicious.  Apparently we need an authoritarian to trample on our rights in order to restore our democratic Constitution (which to the best of my knowledge, remains legally in effect) and to save us from a duly elected President who's leaving office in a few months.

They have a naive fantasy where a strongman comes in and wipes the impure away. An Unfettered Man who grandly and unapologetically fulfills their wildest adolescent Id-fantasies regardless of how unpalatable they are to the reasonable. Torture terrorists because they deserve to suffer, kill enemies indiscriminately and without remorse, punish those truly responsible for our misery - the foreigner, the refugee, the urban criminals, the political class, the free press, they in general who the Politically Correct refuses to name but everyone really knows are truly at fault - and stop blaming ourselves. Bring the world back to simplicity of the Neverwas.

Someone who "tells it like it is" in a factless emotionally-gripping sort of way, one that mostly appeals to White Men who've never had to deal with an ounce of nuance in their lives and want to go back to those supposed Great times that came Before and have every reason to believe quite firmly - or at least subconsciously recognize - that they are never going to be directly targeted by the cleansing fire of their would be Great Leader.

The sicking thing is how little Trump tries to hide his apparent authoritarian bent - quoting Mussolini, praising Putin as "strong" and ignoring Russia's more criminal activities particularly in Syria, giving a kind-of respectful nod to Assad, Hussein, and Kim Jong-Un. I mean, that's crazy, fucking crazy, he's an US Presidential nominee who glibly relates to dictators, and I don't see why it's not as big an issue than even the admission of molesting women because he can get away with it for his supposedly Nationalistic base.

...I mean, holy shit, do some of our politicians have any sort of filter between their brains and their mouths?!  It boggles me sometimes that these guys get through life without hurting themselves, much less end up in a position of authority.

Unless you're in the ever-rarer swing districts, there's a disincentive to give a damn since it's common sense in some circles that the more divisive you are, the more you’ll fund-raise. Again, Trump is the nominee and literally could be President of the United States of America - a global superpower composed of hundreds of millions of people with a military that can conquer the world - purely by playing off divisiveness and using it to get cheap media attention. A man I'm fairly convinced that would be confounded by the entry tutorial of a Sid Meier game.
Peace, Love, and Tranquility

Offline metro.

  • Member
  • Posts: 11203
  • notesonhowtolive.
Re: US Presidential Debate Thread
« Reply #38 on: October 12, 2016, 03:06:31 am »
A man I'm fairly convinced that would be confounded by the entry tutorial of a Sid Meier game.


hahahahah yessssss

at the movies drunk & young

Offline Ixarku

  • Member
  • Posts: 5867
  • (V)_|*,,,*|_(V)
Re: US Presidential Debate Thread
« Reply #39 on: October 12, 2016, 03:07:41 am »
"Grab her by the pussy", oh yes, very hateful... but is he really expressing hate at all in this comment? No... he isn't. Disrespectful and distasteful though it may be, this isn't hateful one bit. Nor did he ever generalize all Mexicans in his announcement statement. He literally follows up his remark by saying that "and some, I'm sure, are good people", which should make it clear that he is not saying what you're trying to tell him that he's saying at all.

...which is not all that different from beginning a statement with, "I'm not racist, but..." and following that with a racist statement.  Sorry, but this type of denial or apologia doesn't hold water.  If your argument is about the appropriateness of applying the word "hateful" to Trump, then, frankly, you're missing the point.  Pick the adjective of your choice:  hateful, offensive, inappropriate, bombastic, belligerent, or whichever else suits you.  The man's erratic, prone to making personal attacks, lies incessantly, avoids responsibility for his words and actions whenever possible, and utterly fails to comport himself with the degree of composure that the leader of the world's most powerful country should.  Frankly, I don't even care what his policies are; Trump's overall behavior is disgraceful, even for a politician.  It's embarrassing that he's an American.



There was an article I read a few weeks ago that dissected Trump's penchant for implying or outright stating outrageous things, then backing away from taking responsibility for his words, e.g. stuff like "Some people say...".  I think this is the one - it's interesting analysis:

https://thinkprogress.org/donald-trump-may-sound-like-a-clown-but-he-is-a-rhetoric-pro-like-cicero-ac40fd1cda79

Personally, understanding his style of speaking, I find his approach to be distasteful and dishonest.  Rather than "telling it like it is", he makes a lot of implications without actually taking responsibility for anything he says.  It's masterful and it's disgusting at the same time.



And what's worst about all of the above is that even if Trump should manage to get elected, what do you think is going to happen?  The man has alienated most of the people within the political establishment; if you think 8 years of Obama butting heads with a mostly Republican Congress was fun, what do you think is going to happen when Trump starts bellowing at the Legislative branch?  His approach on foreign policy will likely be at least equally disastrous.  Trump will have the effectiveness and credibility of a lame duck President before his first month in office is out, if he doesn't manage to get himself impeached and convicted first.  What's he going to do then, stage a military coup?

The thing is, this is not the 19th century.  We don't need some bellowing blowhard to whip Congress into shape or to bully other nations into submission.  We live in a complex world and Trump's ham-fisted belligerence is not going to accomplish anything.  The rest of the world is paying too much attention to this election cycle to put up with that crap should Trump actually win.  I don't like Clinton for a number of reasons, but there's absolutely no doubt that she understands how things work within the system.  She certainly has the capability to run the show, and, conversely, I rather doubt that Trump would even know how to begin.
If I ever meet God in person, I'm going to ask Him why he created so many stupid people, and then punch Him in the nose before he answers.