At 9/30/16 06:15 PM, Gario wrote: It's actually a legitimate question, though - no need to knock it right away. It also has a clean, easy answer (basically, lower scale, blind trust). That's what any former president with business dealings have done with their businesses. It's also a lovely way to compare against Trump once again, who is giving it to his kids and calling it a blind trust (which is literally the opposite of what a blind trust is). Clinton's foundation will thus cause no conflict of interest, while Trump's foundation is a gross conflict of interest.

Don't get me wrong, I think it's fine to bring up. But what I'm tried of is people only wanting Hillary asked these questions, when Trump who has WAY more issues with legality, credibility, and trust, is just supposed to get a free pass. It's mind bogglingly stupid to me and it's unfair. You should want BOTH candidates grilled and vetted as hard as possible. Not just the one you don't particularly like.

Unless the election is rigged, or Trump is just a Clinton puppet, I predict that Trump will win the next debates, and the election.

Fuck, if Trump puts Hillary on the defensive like she did with him, and gets her talking about all the murders, fraud, and corruption she's linked to, she may very well lose

At 9/29/16 11:54 PM, TylerFromTexas wrote: ...and this is why I'm willing to hold my nose for Clinton. Just give her that one term and hopefully a decent Republican candidate can take over the next term.

Do you think Paul Ryan would make a good Republican candidate in 2020? He can use the experience he earned running for Vice President.

At 9/30/16 12:35 PM, RandyRandom wrote: It's either the douche or a turd sandwich, and it all comes down to bureaucracy. I do hope Trump wins because that man walks like his shit doesn't stink

Are you are a Republican? Are you going to vote for Trump?

This topic needs to stay about the debates please.

On that note, and turning the page a bit:

We've got the Vice Presidential debates on Tuesday and interest looks to be pretty low. Both candidates are not nationally known, both are policy wonks, so people do not have that feeling of a "heavyweight title fight" like they did monday. Still, I think this will be important to pay attention to for a couple reasons:

1. Age of our Pres candidates: If Trump is elected, he will be the oldest President ever elected. If Hillary is elected, she will be the second oldest. I don't want to come off as a ghoul, or wishing something terrible on either one (much as I dislike Trump and would love him to drop out immediately, I don't want to be that sort of person that wishes him harm or death), but this is something that needs to be considered. The older the candidate, the more likely that they may not be able to serve the term and the VP would take over as President. We need to avail ourselves of every opportunity to know who these folks are and what they plan to do with their current bid, and what they'd do should they get into the big chair.

2. Statements made about how much Trump intends to do/possibility he may not serve if elected: There have been allegations that Donald Trump intends to basically be a figurehead and allow Mike Pence to dictate and set policy, so it's critical if that's true to understand who Mike Pence is and what his policies are. There is also the continuing and persistent reality (which to me is very under-reported) that Donald Trump is under a RICO investigation. Which should that end in conviction, it's easy to see him either never taking the oath of office, or being impeached and removed (either through conviction or resignation).

Either way you look at it, I think there's some pretty compelling reasons here to have familiarity with who these VP picks are and whether or not they hurt or enhance your view of your chosen candidate (if you have one). All that said....what is your interest level in this debate?

At 9/30/16 11:12 PM, Korriken wrote:

At 9/30/16 02:17 PM, Gario wrote:

At 9/30/16 12:29 PM, Korriken wrote:
Why the need to scoop up her folder and hand it to the moderator? Comes off as strange to me.

When you're looking for something suspect, you can easily find it. Who knows why she handed her folder in, but I have a better question: why does it matter?

She didn't. someone else did. I guess according to your logic any time we see something out of the ordinary, it should never be questioned, ever. What does it matter?

You're not questioning. You're assuming there's a goddamn conspiracy based on the slightest difference from the norm. Also, you're creating a false
Dichotomy: either QUESTION EVERY GODDAMN THING YOU THINK IS OUT OF THE NORM, or DON'T ASK QUESTIONS, EVER! Is there really no in-between to that?

At worst, the contents of the folder was proof that she knew the questions beforehand and had her responses written down so she could glance over them if she forgot the lines she spent days rehearsing.

Which I already said was a pointless benefit for someone who spent a week preparing for the debate. Those weren't off the wall things to ask; those were questions any reasonable person would have an answer prepared for. Having those questions in front of you would provide literally no benefits, in that case. Your worst case (assuming you're right) makes a mountain out of a molehill.

At best, the moderator grabs the folders later anyway and the guy, for no real reason, grabbed the folder and handed it to him.

Well, no reason we're aware of. We don't have to be, either - we're NOT entitled to knowing every little detail of how to work a debate.

Will we ever know? Of course not. Would it make a difference to know? Probably not. Could it be the worst case scenario? Unlikely, but considering how an bloviated assclown like Trump can keep up in the polls against her, and how the DNC email leaks showed how they systematically worked against Sanders to get her nominated, anything is possible.

Sure! It's also all pointless to get worked up about, even in the worst case. Seriously, what are you trying to get at, here?

Also, I wasn't looking for something suspect. It jumped out at me. If I was looking for something suspect, I probably would have noticed a lot more beyond Clinton's cocky body language and the fact someone snatched up her folder the moment the debate ended.

The whole "Handed in the folder" thing is something virtually no one else gave a shit about. You're digging pretty hard for something to be upset about.

We'll see in the next debate. I think Anderson Cooper will be the fairest of the moderators myself. I can't say the same about Raddatz, but we'll see.

Well, unlike Holt, Cooper is a Democrat. Unlike this first debate, the second one might ACTUALLY favor Clintob, in my humblest of opinions.

Chris Wallace will probably favor Trump, which will be a fun to watch. Clinton was incredibly prepared and knew just what to say in the last debate. Let's see if she can do that two more times.

Indeed, I look forward to it.

At 10/1/16 01:48 PM, aviewaskewed wrote: Either way you look at it, I think there's some pretty compelling reasons here to have familiarity with who these VP picks are and whether or not they hurt or enhance your view of your chosen candidate (if you have one). All that said....what is your interest level in this debate?

Probably higher than most people's, but then again, I'm a bit of a wonk. Mike Pence has a pretty straightforward history as governor of Indiana, so I have a pretty good idea of what his policies as President would be. He is also a competent and experienced guy who reasonably could take over should something happen to Trump. Now, I like Kaine, and I understand his stand on several of the issues, but I'm not sure how he would govern, and that's something I'm hoping to get a feel for. As you said, considering the age of both candidates, there is a higher possibility of something happening to them.

I just realized that with all the comparisons of Trump to Hitler, he is really a lot more like Philippe Pétain, who surrendered to Hitler on behalf of France in 1940 and ran the Vichy government. To compare Trump to someone as dynamic as Hitler is giving him too much credit.

-Both men admired and tried to emulate their enemies in hope of striking a good deal with them (Pétain with Hitler, Trump with Putin)

-Both men distrusted their allies to the point they neglected their real enemies (Pétain distrusting the UK instead of Germany, Trump distrusting NATO and Japan instead of Russia and China)

-Both men called for a return to the old days (Pétain to WWI, Trump to the Cold War)

-Both men had a strong hatred of the current elected government and the status quo

-Both men embraced the far-right fringes of their respective societies

Note that the Vichy government was not technically a Nazi-run government, its cabinet having formed before the surrender. Its leaders comprised many who had been prominent in French politics for years. But that did not make it any less of a collaborationist government. While the United States does not face the threat of a foreign enemy occupying our capital, I hope that our government, if Trump is elected, allow our nation's enemies to grow unchecked.

At 9/30/16 07:10 PM, DOOKIEMALLO wrote: Unless the election is rigged, or Trump is just a Clinton puppet, I predict that Trump will win the next debates, and the election.

It would be nice to see Trump win a debate, at least one. Most debates are too close to call a winner.

At 10/2/16 02:56 AM, DoctorStrongbad wrote:

At 9/30/16 07:10 PM, DOOKIEMALLO wrote: Unless the election is rigged, or Trump is just a Clinton puppet, I predict that Trump will win the next debates, and the election.

It would be nice to see Trump win a debate, at least one. Most debates are too close to call a winner.

He could prepare well and win. Plus, Trump has all this money, what if he bribes a few governors and rigs the election? Florida is a must win for him, if he doesn't win the state fairly, what if he bribes the governor of Florida, who is a Trump supporter, into rigging the votes for him? And he could maybe do that with a few other states as well. I know he wont have to rig every state in order to win one, he's gonna win most of the south, midwest, and most of the west. He'll probably win 1 or 2 east coast states as well, but he's gotta win Florida.

At 10/2/16 02:56 AM, DoctorStrongbad wrote: It would be nice to see Trump win a debate, at least one. Most debates are too close to call a winner.

Not the last one though. That one Hillary won in a landslide. Trump proved what I figured: His game is far too limited to maintain a 90 minute or so one on one debate. He is better in a situation like the primaries where he can hang back and just jump in when he comes up with a funny line, or he sees an opening to attack somebody.

The Vice President debate went well. Mike Pence did a very good, and won it. It is too bad that there will only be one of them.

At 10/8/16 02:53 AM, lapis wrote: It's irrelevant anyway, Trump is finished. No amount of guile is going to outweigh a video of him boasting about groping women in the crotch.

Do you have a source to back up your claim?

At 10/8/16 04:14 AM, lapis wrote:

At 10/8/16 03:14 AM, DoctorStrongbad wrote: Do you have a source to back up your claim?

Any news site? Or:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oNiad5mPZPc

I guess that technically speaking, I should have said "the ability to grope women in the crotch".

That video did not seem as bad as you first claimed. I don't thin Trump should have to worry about it.

At 10/8/16 04:44 PM, DoctorStrongbad wrote: That video did not seem as bad as you first claimed. I don't thin Trump should have to worry about it.

And that's why there's no talking to you. Trust me, that comment coupled with the disastrous debate performance, coupled with polls showing he has lost ALL the ground he made up for last month....I think he's running short of miracles. Especially since it's now looking like Congressional republicans have decided to pull up stakes and run as far and as fast as they can from his candidacy.

Edit: Just that he admits to trying to sleep with a married woman should destroy him with any Evangelical or other true believer in an Abrahamic religion.

At 10/8/16 06:03 PM, aviewaskewed wrote: Edit: Just that he admits to trying to sleep with a married woman should destroy him with any Evangelical or other true believer in an Abrahamic religion.

I think you're right that this comment is damning, but as we seen, we've seen Trump make embarrassing verbal gaffe after gaffe and yet still be in the race. He'll alienate some of the Evangelical voters, but I do believe that the blue-collar crowds and the Evangelicals who weren't offended by this somehow will begin to circle the wagons in some sort of "him against the world" mentality, if they haven't already.

Trump has truly put himself into a corner and deservingly so, but we all know about what happens when you put anyone or anything in a corner.

A good commentary on this non issue.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gc751fPF1Cg

At 10/8/16 07:01 PM, orangebomb wrote: I think you're right that this comment is damning, but as we seen, we've seen Trump make embarrassing verbal gaffe after gaffe and yet still be in the race. He'll alienate some of the Evangelical voters, but I do believe that the blue-collar crowds and the Evangelicals who weren't offended by this somehow will begin to circle the wagons in some sort of "him against the world" mentality, if they haven't already.

I don't think it kills him, you're right. But I DO think what it does is it takes a block that was VERY uneasy with him to begin with and was basically "holding their nose" and hoping he didn't do anything new to make them regret the support or nothing was uncovered....then this. To me it's really impossible to square "I'm a good and ideological pure Christian" with someone who has admitted to breaking two commandments now (adultery, and coveting thy neighbors wife). I know a lot of these people do mental and moral gymnastics all the time and look at it as a "greater good" thing sometimes. But I have to believe that this latest issue is going to peel at least some of these people away as they throw up their hands and if not go to Hillary, either stay home, or vote for a fringe candidate they can feel more secure with.

Trump has truly put himself into a corner and deservingly so, but we all know about what happens when you put anyone or anything in a corner.

The problem is, he has very little time to make up the ground he seems to be losing. Unless this is a case where people are lying to pollsters because they don't want the stigma of voting for Trump and then will go to the polls and vote for him....it becomes increasingly hard to see a path to victory for him. Low education whites are not the demographic they used to be and more and more it looks like I and others who have felt this election will basically be the end of any major party or candidate running on "white slight", xenophobia, sexism, and/or racism as tool to gain enough support to carry that candidate into the White House (I think it'll take a bit longer yet for that to trickle down to the state level, and longer still to start working on more local races). Like it or not, the country is changing, it's getting more and more diverse and if candidates can't find a way to tap into that support broadly, they simply will not be able to win. The numbers will be too stacked against them. Trump may still wind up being the test case for that.

With that though, we should probably make this into a new topic if there's interest in continuing down this road. This thread is supposed to be about the debates. Our next one is tomorrow.

Some starter questions:

Is your interest level the same, greater, or less, then the first debate?

Who do you think the town hall format favors/disfavors?

Do you think Trump's apology over the 05 tape will preclude Hillary from being able to use that as too much of a weapon?

What kind of questions do you think the candidates will be asked?

Do the moderators have a prayer of keeping any kind of control of this thing?

Just a couple of things to get us started going back onto the road to what this topic is supposed to be about

The Podesta Leaks are out and Assange says this is the tip of the iceberg. There already is some pretty damning comment, like Hillary's pro-KXL (and assumedly pro-DAPL at this point) and pro-TPP stances.

There's also this gem:

[...]

"It’s no brain surgery, but the media have long failed to provide a clear credible answer. They are unable to come up with an answer or don’t like the answer that’s staring them in the face. The main reason behind successful immigration should be painfully obvious to even the most dimwitted of observers: Some groups of people are almost always highly successful given only half a chance (Jews*, Hindus/Sikhs and Chinese people, for example), while others (Muslims, blacks** and Roma***, for instance) fare badly almost irrespective of circumstances. The biggest group of humanity can be found somewhere between those two extremes – the perennial overachievers and the professional never-do-wells."

And this one:

*Hillary Clinton Said Her Dream Is A Hemispheric Common Market, With Open Trade And Open Markets. *“My dream is a hemispheric common market, with open trade and open borders, some time in the future with energy that is as green and sustainable as we can get it, powering growth and opportunity for every person in the hemisphere.” [05162013 Remarks to Banco Itau.doc, p. 28]

As we've seen in the past, Trump is against open borders and free trade. If he were smart (and who knows, maybe Kellyanne could convince him to do this) he'd call these things out. What we saw in the first debate is that when Clinton tries to triangulate, which she is wont to do with some of these subjects, she bombs badly. People don't want a policy wonk. Wonkiness or no, it would be interesting to see how she'd explain some of this.

At 10/8/16 07:42 PM, aviewaskewed wrote: Is your interest level the same, greater, or less, then the first debate?

Practically less. You never say never in politics, but it's safe to say that Hillary ran away with the first one, I expect she'll run away with the his one again.

Who do you think the town hall format favors/disfavors?

I don't think it necessarily favors anyone, considering that both candidates are very unpopular, even if it is based on exaggeration. If I had to pick one though, it would be Hillary by default.

Do you think Trump's apology over the 05 tape will preclude Hillary from being able to use that as too much of a weapon?

Don't know. Though considering how nasty this election has gotten, it wouldn't surprise me if Clinton uses this to her advantage. It's slimy and bush-league, but you can't say that Trump didn't walk into that mess. It would be interesting to see what Trump will say in his defense.

What kind of questions do you think the candidates will be asked?

Similar to the first one, (public policy, Daesh and so on) though I do expect the sexual comments to be mentioned quite a bit.

Do the moderators have a prayer of keeping any kind of control of this thing?

I hope so, but I doubt it. Referring to my earlier post, Trump is getting desperate and cornered, so I know he's going to be belligerent. The supporters will circle the wagons, so I don't think he's going to get very many undecided voters on his side.

I think at this point Trump has nothing to lose. He should go into this debate with the not-give-a-fuck attitude that he seemed to do in the primaries. All I'm honestly looking forward to is entertainment tomorrow night, because victory for us doesn't seem realistic at this point.

At 10/9/16 08:35 PM, Entice wrote: But it was already known that he's been married three times. There was already evidence of his extramarital affairs. If that didn't turn away Evangelical voters before, why would it now? He should have been blatantly disqualified from ever having their support in the first place, if that was the case.

As I said, I don't know that this drops a majority, or even how many this might peel off. But I believe this was a group that was very much holding their nose, or averting their eyes from the obvious (like many Republican voters have up till now) and hoping "ok, that's the past....they won't find anything more". But then he just keeps talking, and they keep finding new evidence, and I have to think there has to be a breaking point for at least some people where they say "ok, now I'm out". We're seeing that as the party tries to reel back as many endorsements as they can ahead of the Democrats sticking this disaster onto the Party for the next few cycles.

The people voting for Trump are far more concerned about reversing changing social norms than they are with having a candidate who adheres to biblical rules.

What can you base that on? Seems to me we're both speculating here. But at the risk of sounding arrogant, I feel like my speculation has a little more basis.

Hell, the fact the he makes such brash sexual statements might even give him a boost among those who see political correctness as a tacit assault on their identity (the "this is just normal locker room talk" sentiment seems to support that). They either completely missed the point that his statements describe predatory behavior or disagreed. That, by extension, gives them leeway to believe "he didn't do those things, only said them" and then act like Trump is being railroaded just for saying the word "pussy".

I'm seeing that happening with many of the base already. But I think Evangelical voters, and the more ideologically "pure" among them are different matter. As I've said many times, I see the Republican Party more and more in the last few cycles as an increasingly uncomfortable coalition of groups that are receding from the mainstream of the national scene. They are LOSING that majority position they've tended to enjoy and they are pissed and motivated to do something about it (and the Republican Party hierarchy has attempted to tap that, I call this the "useful idiot strategy") but the problem is two fold from where I sit: 1. You have a base that isn't nearly strong enough to propel a candidate into office and 2. You have a base that increasingly refuses to be whipped and/or steered into trying to get a palletable choice elected (this is what proves the hierarchy's "useful idiot strategy" to be a falsehood. They will not be steered, and have in fact discovered they have the numbers to steer. But because they do NOT have the numbers to make their will become law and reality...it results in the petulant and impotent fit that's put Trump into the chair and perhaps will poison the whole apparatus and radically alter the country for years to come).

I just don't see him being abandoned by these people anytime soon.

The rats are starting to leave the ship as we speak....I need to catch up on tonight's debate, but early reactions I'm hearing suggest he took a bleeding wound and stuck an even bigger knife into it and caused a hemorrage. Even if he retains all the support I'm proposing he could lose, as I said above, it's still not enough to propel him into office.

The conclusion of the debate is that Trump performed terribly, but not as terribly as we all thought he would. He still didn't say anything that would win anybody over, so I guess he and his campaign really think that he can win the election with little to no help from minorities and women. Good luck with that.

At least he prevented more Republicans from immediately withdrawing their support, I guess? Really though, is there anything to salvage from unendorsing him after a whole year of controversies before?

At 10/10/16 09:51 AM, FinaLee wrote: The conclusion of the debate is that Trump performed terribly, but not as terribly as we all thought he would. He still didn't say anything that would win anybody over, so I guess he and his campaign really think that he can win the election with little to no help from minorities and women. Good luck with that.

At least he prevented more Republicans from immediately withdrawing their support, I guess? Really though, is there anything to salvage from unendorsing him after a whole year of controversies before?

I disagree entirely. Trump won this debate because of the simple fact that he did exactly what he was supposed to do in the first debate (which he didn't in the first debate), which is to deflect questions and talk about Hillary, and staying on the attack as opposed to being on defense. And really that's what this entire election has been about, because since both candidates are so unpopular, once they start talking about themselves they're done. They have to make it all about their opponent and why nobody should vote for their opponent. In the first debate, Trump kept defending himself. This time around, he wasted no time in exposing Hillary's weaknesses on every question he was asked.

I don't think last night will change this election much, however, but I'm glad Trump was finally able to get it right last night and attack her the way she deserves to be attacked.

At 10/10/16 11:16 AM, mothballs wrote: I don't think last night will change this election much, however, but I'm glad Trump was finally able to get it right last night and attack her the way she deserves to be attacked.

That's some harsh resentment, but it's probably the very thing that's kept Trump's campaign afloat.

At 10/10/16 06:15 PM, FinaLee wrote: That's some harsh resentment, but it's probably the very thing that's kept Trump's campaign afloat.

That's what started it in the first place. Last night's debate was again another example of "why this guy is never going to change" he is nothing but a disruptive, slighted, candidate of being pissed off. If you have bought into the alt right theory that nothing at all has gotten better in 8 years, that Hillary kills political opponents, that Benghazi is a thing....then this is the guy for you. There's no substance there, there's no real policy. It's just people who don't want the Democrat and who project their pet hatreds and misunderstandings on to Trump and say "he'll fix it for me" no, no he won't. But it looks like the party is well and truly scared and running away four weeks out. Also the idea he wasn't on the defensive last night? He was totally on the defensive the longer it went. The attacks on Hillary got more desperate, he attacked the moderators for perceived unfairness. He came off as a whiner and a coward who when he wasn't winning or getting his own way just cried and fell apart. Hell when he walked out at the top he looked defeated to me.

Trump's performance is only considered a success because he's set such a low bar for himself.

Hillary is an A student, so getting an A is nothing special. Trump is a D- student so when he gets a C his parents take him to Disneyland.

Trump did a much better job in the second debate, than the first. I enjoyed watching him be more aggressive, especially the way he handled Bill Clinton's known infidelities. If he can maintain his aggressiveness, the third debate be the best one of all.

At 10/14/16 01:45 PM, gumOnShoe wrote:

At 10/14/16 12:14 PM, DoctorStrongbad wrote: Drumpf did a much better job in the second debate, than the first. I enjoyed watching him be more aggressive, especially the way he handled Bill Clinton's known infidelities. If he can maintain his aggressiveness, the third debate be the best one of all.

Rosetinted glasses much?

Obviously, the worse debate of modern history. And trump showed he had no skill or qualifications and that he was a deeply troubled individual who should be kept as far away from power as possible.

You must of watched a different debate. I understand that you dislike Donald, but he did do a much better job than the first debate.