Shit, his absolute best answer of the night was the last word of the night…
Yeah, but it was about how determined Hillary is.
Shit, his absolute best answer of the night was the last word of the night…
Yeah, but it was about how determined Hillary is.
Shit, his absolute best answer of the night was the last word of the night…
Yes, but it was also a compliment to Hillary's strengths.
Shit, his absolute best answer of the night was the last word of the night…
yeah, it's a compliment about Hilary Clinton though.
Just caught the last five minutes of it and Trump seemed relatively composed. Someone summarize how it went and who got burned, please.
The rest of the time Trump was pretty much the opposite, and was constantly interrupting.
Just caught the last five minutes of it and Trump seemed relatively composed. Someone summarize how it went and who got burned, please.
Trump blamed the moderators for everything and attacked Hillary a bunchwhile ignoring all questions.
Hillary ignored him and said "let the tape speak for itself" and tried to actually talk specific plans and presidential stuff.
@The:
The rest of the time Trump was pretty much the opposite, and was constantly interrupting.
Seemed incredibly negative about most of it though. Didn't hear a single point position in my sample.
Just caught the last five minutes of it and Trump seemed relatively composed. Someone summarize how it went and who got burned, please.
Trump didn't explode into any bumblefucks and thus was the most composed he's ever been really.
But he did redirect a lot of questions towards Hillary and seemed a bit shifty here and there; he kinda answered some stuff but kinda ran away on most of them.
And judging from the audience Trump got a few zingers in the beginning but that's about it.
Trump did better, but he was still awful. He was just less entertainingly so this time.
Was Trump really positive about anything whatsoever? Hillary was, I noticed that.
Was Trump really positive about anything whatsoever? Hillary was, I noticed that.
The last question, yeah.
I missed the beginning, but I didn't see anything Trump was positive about… unless we count he's positive Hillary is a f'ailure as a senator"
Was Trump really positive about anything whatsoever? Hillary was, I noticed that.
i could see that being a tactic though, talking about how the status quo's bad and needs to be changed.
Arguably, his plan on lowering taxes and energy plans could have been positive, but they were clearly so vague without concrete thought and spoken in such a manner that any positive spin on it couldn't have a lasting impact.
I don't think that Trump was interrupting nearly as much as everyone is making it seem; there were a few points but nothing like we've seen before from him. Hillary also did some interrupting on her part.
Donald "Poor Judgement" Trump still wasn't nearly as strong as Hillary though.
Arguably, his plan on lowering taxes and energy plans could have been positive
Both are basically "Let's go back to doing things that didn't work" and it's hard to really be positive with that.
@Cyan:
I'm sorry but Pence must carry this candidacy to term.
And pay for the funeral when it dies during birth.
Both are basically "Let's go back to doing things that didn't work" and it's hard to really be positive with that.
the businesses and employees that got screwed over by the changes might like it, which at this point I'd assume what Trump was going for in his rhetoric. And it sounded nice. Taxes back to 15%, no more expensive Obamacare, and clean coal solving our economy issues.
It's very easy to poke holes in it, but it sounds nice.
Both are basically "Let's go back to doing things that didn't work" and it's hard to really be positive with that.
God knows that comment about clean coal made a bunch of laid-off miners with Stockholm Syndrome nod right along.
Got to admit Trump's last answer was really clever. Emphasizing Hillary's "fighting power", which many seem to perceive negatively (typical elbow mentality among established politicians).
But she did a great job acting all close and caring when it came to the questions from the audience, and apparently that matters.
Apparently Trump's bro Billy Bush got suspended.
Hillary won, but Trump did much better than last time. He was actually halfway disciplined and at least gave the appearance he wasn't totally off the rails. That being said, he argued with the moderators about fairness like a child, he often went on tangents that went nowhere instead of answering the question he was given, and he focused almost entirely on attacking Hillary instead of putting forth ANY attempts at being positive or giving substance to his plans or ideas. But he didn't freak out at any point, so definitely BETTER.
So Hillary won, but Trump did much better overall. I'm kinda worried the media will grade him on a curve because of this and he'll end up "Winning" As a result, but one thing I know:
After his falling polls and this leaked tape, he's falling HARD and FAST. He didn't need to hold his own here, he needed to knock it out of the park.
And he didn't.
He threw his VP under the bus and admitted to not discussing politics or views together. Maybe the general public might not care but that's pretty much a middle finger to the GOP party.
He threw his VP under the bus.
Well Pence did do the same thing the other night so it seemed only fair.
Well Pence did do the same thing the other night so it seemed only fair.
Feel like the magnitude's different given one's about policy and the other is just basic human decency, but Trump just revealed that he lacks what all politicians need to be able to do, compromise and communicate with others even when they disagree with your policy.
Clinton's answer on duality of public vs private opinions on policies is probably the most truthful answer in politics. Compromise. Selling legislation through highlighting selective aspects of it. Trump shoots down everything as either right or wrong without nuance. And while it should've been obvious to anyone before it's clear now that even within the GOP he won't compromise or discuss politics or opinions on issues. So yeah, even disregarding everything else, he's proving to lack what it takes to be a politician.
Yeah, I guess it can be argued that's part of Trump's appeal, that he's not a politician. But he's unwilling to play the game outside of what seems to be his own interests/opinions.
And in other news the sun will rise tomorrow. Realize all I'' saying seems obvious in hindsight.
You know you've either pissed off or embarassed a Trump fanboy bad when they block you on twitter.
Pence has cancelled his scheduled visit to New Jersey for a fundraiser.
http://www.nj.com/politics/index.ssf/2016/10/mike_pence_cancels_ocean_county_fundraiser_for_tru.html
Like Hillary said, if they just spent time correcting his lies during the debates, they'd never get any time to talk about anything else.
I don't know. I think if Hillary had been able to spout off (accurate) facts in counter to everything he said, it would work pretty well. SHow that he knows nothing, and she knows a lot.
Really I'd just like Zephos up there against him for half an hour on foreign policy.
The debates are already terrible without that
Btw, talking about facts, I just noticed that the US has a bit of a problem when it comes to getting access to fact checking mechanisms. Do correct me if I got anything wrong below here
Cross checking of facts are being done all over the Internet and some on tv which might be derailed by the media station's political bias. So primary information with respect to facts rely on the Internet to debunk
So as per the internet usage statistics, 81% of US citizens between the ages 50-64 have access to the Internet and 58% from the 65+ category. 18-29 rests on 96% and 30-49 on 93% so these are alright. So if we take the 19% of 65+ and 42% of 50-64 who don't use the Internet, how can they fact check assuming that TVs don't do arbitrary fact checks every day for the viewers to see them? Taking the total population for those percentages, that comes upto around ~40 million without an Internet connection to fact check. Let's assume 10 million out of them actually had a chance to re-verify facts or cannot vote due to some reason. That's still a solid 30 million without fact checking mechanisms and I am not including the 7% and 4% from the other age categories which would also hold a decent chunk (roughly ~6mil put together). Also to consider is the non-quantifiable % of people who have Internet connections but don't actively seek out face checkers. Adding this to news channels like Fox who show flawed stats on TVs, it creates quite an amount of credibility bias amongst viewers. Strange to see how the easy access of TVs but no Internet seems to create such a unique disconnect.
I guess the next best thing politics would try to do would be to streamline the Internet to privatize what people would watch and bias it up like the TV stations. That's going to be quite a spectacle.
Just a reminder. THIS was an exchange last night.
CLINTON: Well, here we go again. I've been in favor of getting rid of carried interest for years, starting when I was a senator from New York. But that's not the point here.
TRUMP: Why didn't you do it? Why didn't you do it?
CLINTON: Because I was a senator with a Republican president. I will be the president.
TRUMP: You could have done it if you were an effective; if you were an effective senator, could you have done it. But you were not an effective senator.
RADDATZ: Please allow her to respond. She didn't interrupt you.
CLINTON: Under our Constitution, presidents have something called veto power.
Dude seriously doesn't know how checks and balances work. He doesn't grasp the most basic elementary school function of government.
Also.
“I know nothing about Russia.” “Russia is new, in terms of nuclear,”
when in fact Russia detonated its first nuclear weapon in 1949.
Also, Anderson Cooper asked Trump FOUR times about his sexual assault bragging, and he kept dodging.
She was honestly too nice to him in that exchange. How much more incompetent can you get than not understanding how your government works when running for the highest possible?
@xan:
Btw, talking about facts, I just noticed that the US has a bit of a problem when it comes to getting access to fact checking mechanisms. Do correct me if I got anything wrong below here
Cross checking of facts are being done all over the Internet and some on tv which might be derailed by the media station's political bias. So primary information with respect to facts rely on the Internet to debunk
So as per the internet usage statistics, 81% of US citizens between the ages 50-64 have access to the Internet and 58% from the 65+ category. 18-29 rests on 96% and 30-49 on 93% so these are alright. So if we take the 19% of 65+ and 42% of 50-64 who don't use the Internet, how can they fact check assuming that TVs don't do arbitrary fact checks every day for the viewers to see them? Taking the total population for those percentages, that comes upto around ~40 million without an Internet connection to fact check. Let's assume 10 million out of them actually had a chance to re-verify facts or cannot vote due to some reason. That's still a solid 30 million without fact checking mechanisms and I am not including the 7% and 4% from the other age categories which would also hold a decent chunk (roughly ~6mil put together). Also to consider is the non-quantifiable % of people who have Internet connections but don't actively seek out face checkers. Adding this to news channels like Fox who show flawed stats on TVs, it creates quite an amount of credibility bias amongst viewers. Strange to see how the easy access of TVs but no Internet seems to create such a unique disconnect.
I guess the next best thing politics would try to do would be to streamline the Internet to privatize what people would watch and bias it up like the TV stations. That's going to be quite a spectacle.
All that's not taking into account the confirmation bias granted by the internet, where people may or may not be consciously staying in areas that match with their beliefs. While some places like Politico are known as respectable fact-checking agencies, plenty of other less credible ones stretch and spin their fact-checking to match their narrative. Factor in the way Republicans have spent years undermining the legitimacy of the facts, experts, and the media, and you have a real problem.
So yeah, facts are about as important as tea in America. Some people like real facts, more like them pre-packaged and mass-produced, even more are ambivalent to facts, and some people are still engaged in actively throwing the truth overboard.
Fact Checks of the Second Presidential Debate
While many of Hillary's comments (that they showed) were marked as true (one wasn't but it was marked 'not anymore' and one was 'misleading'); on the other hand most of Trump's (again, what they covered) were marked wrong, lies, and misleading. Only one was marked 'mostly accurate' and that was about Bill not Hillary=
"Former President Bill Clinton was impeached, lost his law license and paid an $850,000 fine to Paula Jones."
Best things I saw in the debate aftermath.
https://www.buzzfeed.com/tanyachen/the-actual-winner-of-the-debate
While the article focuses on this one man in particular. I'm gravitating towards the lady in red that looks like someone young wearing a 1950s granny costume.
Lest anyone think Trump's predebate stunt wasn't bullshit
http://www.rawstory.com/2016/10/trump-called-bill-clintons-accusers-terrible-losers-he-is-really-a-victim/
And apparently the wagons are being circled
trump-stalked-clinton-onstage-at-the-debate-and-women-recognized-him-as-a-threat/
If Trump meant to reassure women that “no one has greater respect for women than I do” then his behavior on stage was even more telling. For the 90 minutes of the debate, Trump literally stalked Clinton. Trump, who weighed 267 pounds at his last physical, is 6’2”. Clinton is 5’7″ and is estimated to weigh 136 pounds. As Clinton responded to questions from the audience and from the moderators, Trump left his seat and followed her. Those watching at home noticed that Trump “hovered.” In reaction to Trump’s tone-deaf response to a Muslim-American woman’s concern about Islamophobia that Muslims could help themselves if “they” would “report stuff,” Twitter was promptly awash with the hashtag #Muslimsreportstuff, many of whom reported that a large orange man was stalking a woman and trying to grab her by the pussy. And while the humor was intended to be sarcastic, women I knew were upset at how threatening Trump’s demeanor toward Clinton was. For a man who had revealed himself as thinking of sexual assault as mere “locker room talk,” his looming and glaring toward Clinton became frightening.
During the exchange over the e-mails, Trump stepped over the line, doing something that no other presidential candidate had ever publicly threatened to do: have his opponent “investigated” for running against him. Trump at that moment did not sound like a presidential candidate but rather like an abusive spouse or a rapist warning the woman that he had was threatening that he would hurt her if she resisted him. While standing very close to her, he raised his voice and began his threat by claiming that Clinton had forced him to do this. He “didn’t want to do this” but he didn’t have a choice, a classic technique of an abuser. He then told her that she should be ashamed of herself, even though the discussion had been about his behavior toward women and his comments toward immigrants, racial minorities, and persons with disabilities. Any woman who has ever been ‘gaslighted’ recognized the behavior of the abuser who yells at his victim that she is the cause of her own abuse.
PLUS FOURTEEN
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/polltracker/clinton-trounces-trump-post-video And this is a WELL regarded pollster. 538 gives them an A-.
trump-stalked-clinton-onstage-at-the-debate-and-women-recognized-him-as-a-threat/
Ugh yeah the stalking. That was definitely creepy on many levels and massively disrespectful.
Paul Ryan has basically stopped trying to defend Trump but refuses to actually renounce him, apparently deciding to join the list of people who's political careers are over now thanks to 2016.
I wonder if Trump will go full kamikaze, and bring up Epstein and the Epstein lists. lol
Dude seriously doesn't know how checks and balances work. He doesn't grasp the most basic elementary school function of government.
I was gonna give him the benefit of the doubt and say he was playing to a dumb audience… but no. I think you're right, he's completely senile now.
There was a weird unscripted moment in the debate last night, where literally everyone in the room knew Trump was making a fool of himself, and they were all quietly laughing at him. Everyone except Trump.
The debates are now episodes of Jerry Springer, and America loves it.
This was a scary night in American politics. This was an American presidential candidate promising to rule like Vladimir Putin.
–- Update From New Post Merge ---
buffett-calls-trumps-bluff-and-releases-his-tax-return.html
Another double digit poll against Trump :I
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/10/prri-atlantic-poll-trump-plummets/503561/
How is it there are still undecided voters? I never understand this.
I can sort of get it when its two seeming moderates like Bush/Gore, or Obama/McCain. Policies and ideas might be totally different and then its just a matter of having somehow not done any research for a year… but you might be sort of half policies in one direction and half policies in another.
But when its a case like this where there's someone as extreme as Trump... (and really when the entire GOP has turned into the discrimination party) how do you not know, 4 weeks out who the hell you plan to vote for? What is wrong with you people? Their fitness for office and temprement are completely different, and their policies are like 98% different. There's no subtle choice at this juncture.
"Undecided voter" either means "someone who won't actually vote" or "idiot" (both are not mutually exclusive.)
If you haven't picked a side of the fence to be on at this point, you probably never will.
How is it there are still undecided voters? I never understand this.
I can sort of get it when its two seeming moderates like Bush/Gore, or Obama/McCain. Policies and ideas might be totally different and then its just a matter of having somehow not done any research for a year… but you might be sort of half policies in one direction and half policies in another.
But when its a case like this where there's someone as extreme as Trump... (and really when the entire GOP has turned into the discrimination party) how do you not know, 4 weeks out who the hell you plan to vote for? What is wrong with you people? Their fitness for office and temprement are completely different, and their policies are like 98% different. There's no subtle choice at this juncture.
People still keep saying Hillary is equal to or worse than Trump. This is mind boggling to me. I have no idea what to say ro anyone that is still undecided. Or that claims Stein and Johnson are far batter than Clinton. I get being pissed at the current way politics are. But I can't understand how people still insist Hillary will destroy us all.
This election is too stressful lol. November needs to get here quickly.
People still keep saying Hillary is equal to or worse than Trump. This is mind boggling to me. I have no idea what to say ro anyone that is still undecided. Or that claims Stein and Johnson are far batter than Clinton. I get being pissed at the current way politics are. But I can't understand how people still insist Hillary will destroy us all.
This election is too stressful lol. November needs to get here quickly.
My hope for this election is that it has exposed the ugliest parts of american politics to the point that people will fullheartedly start working for real change. I also really hope that it will cause moderate democrats and republicans come together and work against a shitshow like this ever happening again.
Just imagine if Rubio would have ran against Sloan and how much less stressful it would be.
Wha-? but-h-how?
How fucking delusional do you have to be to consider that debate "a landslide victory in every poll" when you're down by double digits!!