Final Destination. No Items. Clinton/Trump Only. Third Presidential Debate

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > C-SPAM > Final Destination. No Items. Clinton/Trump Only. Third Presidential Debate

«‹›114 »

This is a popularity contest survey on who will outperform this debate
	Strictly Come Dancing Edwardenholm M. "Ed" Balls, First of His Name, Supernova Dance Star and Ex-Shadow Chancellor
	Drone Murderess, Iron Abuela the Dread Queen Empress Hilda Tilton, First of Her Name, Colonial Adminstrator of Americore Asteroid Mining
	Real Est8 Magn8 Gaivs Conaldvs Magamicvs Tarvmpvs, First of His Name Bigly, The Golden One, Legio XXX Redneckvs Cohorts: "Carpe Pvssy!"
	William H. "Bill" Mitchell, Seventh of His Name, Expert Pollster and Twitter Slayer of Bots, Bumblebee enthusiast and Ma-Ti reincarnated

[Edit Poll (moderators only)]

View Results

Teikanmi: Dec 16, 2006; by R. Guyovich

Mad Doctor Cthulhu posted:

Yeah, Trump was getting really frustrated last night and you could tell on some level that he knows he hosed up big. He didn't make a very big showing at either of the first two debates and his attacks this time were sad attempts to get under Clinton's skin, and she knew it. She upped the ante on her behalf -- calling him a Russian puppet really rattled him -- and that 'I'll keep you in suspense' line is probably what will finally be the one thing that people take away from his run. Clinton is running for president, and Trump is running for another season of his show that Arnold has taken over.

Trump had a lot to lose going into this debate. Nobody expected him to do well, and even his sad tactics of inviting people to shake Clinton show a lack of ingenuity on his part. He could have done more by simply behaving himself than trying to goad Clinton into....well, flipping out? Losing her cool? If Trump's goal was to showcase how reactionary Hillary is, he failed so hard that he probably handed her the election on that alone. But he couldn't stop tripping over his own feet long enough to do anything constructive. Messing up one debate is one thing, but Trump didn't prepare at all. Fox News structured the debate so he could elaborate and they forget that he really isn't prepared for anything. He tried to sound smart. He tried to hit on various controversies. It would have literally been better if he just not shown up at all because at least then he could have been doing something more constructive with his time.

The third debate was more destructive than his baffling and petty battling with the GOPe. I don't know who he thinks he is, but as of now I have a very clear picture of Donald Trump: a very lucky man who has somehow managed to avoid any responsibility for his failures and everything he has done 'right' has been nothing but luck. He's not a businessman, he's a joke. He's the perfect sign, yet again, of privilege posing as skill and talent. In short, yet another Republican only this time he doesn't feel the need to coat the fascism. I don't see the GOP really recovering from this and they were in trouble to begin with. Unfortunately for them, the Democrats seem to want blood and aren't taking prisoners.

If you want a real treat, check out Trump's face as he rips off his notes:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ANT_ZBhpvtw&t=5764s

# ? Oct 20, 2016 20:32

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? Apr 29, 2024 17:45

Coolguye: Jul 6, 2011; Required by his programming!

Mr. Jive posted:

If you can't debunk the material in Wikileaks releases, or you can't demonstrate that the material in Wikileaks releases are irrelevant to the actual issues at stake in this election, then you shouldn't be poisoning the well by taking shots at Assange.

I don't think I've set an unfairly high bar with either of those criteria.

It's objectively impossible to do either if someone already has an opinion either way because the leaks are allegedly going to come through December; you can say he isn't doing anything worthwhile but not that he lied about the releases because he isn't done leaking nothings yet. To be clear I'm basically certain that Assange has gently caress all or he would have released it already, but it's impossible to say the leaks are pointless because they're not done yet.

It is however (I felt trivially) possible to point out that everyone from CNN to infowars to even Wikileaks's own Reddit were really disappointed by oct 4th's massive nothingburger, and suggest that maybe Assange had something to do with that (assange himself refuses to take responsibility for this, saying that "the media falsely reported it"). If he refuses to cop to that then he can't even tell the truth on a tiny thing and he is therefore untrustworthy on larger things

This was apparently not okay and I was asked to quantify where he said oct 4 would be big, and two sentences in his rather bombastic interviews with NYT and fox where he said things would take time were held up as proof that everyone is just stupid and against assange

I am not going to crawl through the hours of media attention that rear end in a top hat got in aug/sep to build the context the rest of the world clearly had at the time but I figured the junkies here might have a video or two building that context on speed dial

Is that clear enough to get past this

# ? Oct 20, 2016 22:34

chitoryu12: Apr 24, 2014

I don't think WikiLeaks actually has anything that could turn the election the other way. Given Assange's self-admitted personal grudge against Clinton, you'd think that if they actually got anything truly damning it would have been released before the debates so it could be shoved in front of her face and potentially drive Democrats away from her.

Instead we've gotten a lot of "Yeah, so what?" bullshit emails and individual phrases taken out of context for headlines.

# ? Oct 20, 2016 22:48

TraderStav: May 19, 2006; It feels like I was standing my entire life and I just sat down

Honestly cannot think of a single thing that could be leaked that would give my vote to trump at this point.

# ? Oct 20, 2016 22:57

fishmech: Jul 16, 2006; by VideoGames; Salad Prong

chitoryu12 posted:

I don't think WikiLeaks actually has anything that could turn the election the other way. Given Assange's self-admitted personal grudge against Clinton, you'd think that if they actually got anything truly damning it would have been released before the debates so it could be shoved in front of her face and potentially drive Democrats away from her.

Instead we've gotten a lot of "Yeah, so what?" bullshit emails and individual phrases taken out of context for headlines.

Yeah Assange has been driven crazy/crazier by his own insistence on staying holed up in the embassy for 5 years or whatever.

His idea of HORRIBLE CAMPAIGN CHANGING INFO is completely out of line with reality.

# ? Oct 20, 2016 23:08

Marx Headroom: May 10, 2007; AT LAST! A show with nonono ~~commercials~~!; Fallen Rib

chitoryu12 posted:

I don't think WikiLeaks actually has anything that could turn the election the other way. Given Assange's self-admitted personal grudge against Clinton, you'd think that if they actually got anything truly damning it would have been released before the debates so it could be shoved in front of her face and potentially drive Democrats away from her.

I agree.

Coolguye posted:

I am not going to crawl through the hours of media attention that rear end in a top hat got in aug/sep to build the context the rest of the world clearly had at the time but I figured the junkies here might have a video or two building that context on speed dial

Are you looking for something that discredits Wikileaks? Or something that proves we should ignore anything released by Wikileaks? There is a difference.

I don't think you can pull off the former since the state dept. has verified many of the leaked emails. The Democrats have been pushing the latter real hard via red baiting.

# ? Oct 21, 2016 01:25

fishmech: Jul 16, 2006; by VideoGames; Salad Prong

Mr. Jive posted:

I agree.

Are you looking for something that discredits Wikileaks? Or something that proves we should ignore anything released by Wikileaks? There is a difference.

I don't think you can pull off the former since the state dept. has verified many of the leaked emails. The Democrats have been pushing the latter real hard via red baiting.

red baiting requires the target to be leftist, genius.

assange was never left, and putinist russia has never been left

# ? Oct 21, 2016 02:01

Marx Headroom: May 10, 2007; AT LAST! A show with nonono ~~commercials~~!; Fallen Rib

fishmech posted:

red baiting requires the target to be leftist, genius.

assange was never left, and putinist russia has never been left

You're right, I should have settled for xenophobia. Unfortunately Russia seems dead-set on eradicating any man, woman, or child associated with "terrorist" organizations in Syria so we'll have to backburner that casus belli.

What else you got? LGBT rights?

# ? Oct 21, 2016 03:49

Marx Headroom: May 10, 2007; AT LAST! A show with nonono ~~commercials~~!; Fallen Rib

Oh right, Russia cyber attacked us. Shame on them . En mi vida.

# ? Oct 21, 2016 04:03

Neo Rasa: Mar 8, 2007; Everyone should play DUKE games.

fishmech posted:

Yeah Assange has been driven crazy/crazier by his own insistence on staying holed up in the embassy for 5 years or whatever.

His idea of HORRIBLE CAMPAIGN CHANGING INFO is completely out of line with reality.

It was REALLY REALLY bad for WikiLeaks that both the moderator and Trump cited them at this debate too. Because she gave total context and shut it down incontrovertibly in like fifteen seconds. So now another burst of "LOOK AT THESE LEAKED EMAILS" isn't going to mean poo poo unless one of them literally has a picture of Hillary wearing Vince Foster's head as a hat.

# ? Oct 21, 2016 05:04

STAC Goat: Mar 12, 2008; Watching you sleep.

Butt first, let's
check the feeds.

Neo Rasa posted:

It was REALLY REALLY bad for WikiLeaks that both the moderator and Trump cited them at this debate too. Because she gave total context and shut it down incontrovertibly in like fifteen seconds. So now another burst of "LOOK AT THESE LEAKED EMAILS" isn't going to mean poo poo unless one of them literally has a picture of Hillary wearing Vince Foster's head as a hat.

The most hilarious thing about the Wikileaks stuff is that even when they stumble on something potentially somewhat damaging its like 3 degrees removed from Hillary. Its always Podesta or Brazille or someone 99% of Americans have never heard of.

If they had anything on Hillary it would have come out by now. Instead they're teasing bringing down Donna Brazille. Who the gently caress cares?

# ? Oct 21, 2016 05:17

euphronius: Feb 18, 2009

It def would have come out by now

# ? Oct 21, 2016 05:17

Mad Doctor Cthulhu: Mar 3, 2008

Lastgirl posted:

I see nothing unfortunate about this

eye for an eye fvckers

True. But it's going to kill the Republican Party. Which isn't a bad thing at all. I'd rather have a center-right party like the Democrats and have Sanders and the people he inspire create an Actual Left for the nation. The heart of this nation has never been a rightist one, even if we've played around with that for four decades.

Teikanmi posted:

If you want a real treat, check out Trump's face as he rips off his notes:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ANT_ZBhpvtw&t=5764s

If he had taken this whole thing seriously he could have learned how to dodge that emotionally. The Republicans would have spent the money on good help if Trump hadn't decided to rip them off and pretend that he won the primary because he was smart instead of just being outspoken among sycophants who were playing softball so they could go back on whatever they said and get a job with the eventual winner.

chitoryu12 posted:

I don't think WikiLeaks actually has anything that could turn the election the other way. Given Assange's self-admitted personal grudge against Clinton, you'd think that if they actually got anything truly damning it would have been released before the debates so it could be shoved in front of her face and potentially drive Democrats away from her.

Instead we've gotten a lot of "Yeah, so what?" bullshit emails and individual phrases taken out of context for headlines.

Wikileaks has been so discredited by this point that they can't be taken seriously. When they hosed Alex Jones with their 3am reveal of jack-loving-poo poo they were over. Put up or shut up, and much like a lot of rightwingers who think they're superior in this election, they got their rear end handed to them because they could not deliver.

Come to think about it, this whole election has pretty much been an expose on how pathetic the Republican Party's media people and general voter base really is. I thought 2012 was going to be the apex of how delusional they are, but they really have no shame when it comes to pretending they're smarter than everybody else and then flaming out in a big way. I knew that day would come, but not like this and in such a clump. I mean, Glenn Beck backed Hillary as his little website/webshow/Breitbart-lite presence collapsed around him and so far he's just been washed away amidst the constant scandals and humiliations of the Trump Campaign. Not only will Clinton win, she's already taken down a huge chunk of the GOP simply by letting Trump go full throttle into a wall.

STAC Goat posted:

The most hilarious thing about the Wikileaks stuff is that even when they stumble on something potentially somewhat damaging its like 3 degrees removed from Hillary. Its always Podesta or Brazille or someone 99% of Americans have never heard of.

If they had anything on Hillary it would have come out by now. Instead they're teasing bringing down Donna Brazille. Who the gently caress cares?

The reason this whole thing fell apart is that the Republicans smelled their own farts too often. Instead of really looking into Clinton's past, they automatically believed that she was inherently corrupt and thus all this information would fall out of the sky and into their hands. They really underestimated her own competence and overestimated their own to such an effect that not only are they losing to Clinton by possibly historical margins, they've shown that they aren't even good reporters or even serious about their profession. How many years did the GOP have their sights on this woman? And what came of it? A possible landslide in her favor. If that doesn't destroy the morale of anybody involved in the GOP in any way, shape, or form and cause them to doubt their cause, they're high.

# ? Oct 21, 2016 05:42

Coolguye: Jul 6, 2011; Required by his programming!

Mr. Jive posted:

Are you looking for something that discredits Wikileaks? Or something that proves we should ignore anything released by Wikileaks? There is a difference.

I thought I was very specific about this but I am looking for things that are indicative of Assange saying October 4th was going to be big, which was the universal impression of everyone who was paying attention but my friend was not at the time. He simply points out that Assange said it would take months to release everything and that's the end of it for him. The fact that literally everyone else on the planet thought otherwise is, to him, a media smear job, and not Assange being a bombastic fucktard whose mouth writes a lot of checks his rear end can't cash - which is the point at hand here.

# ? Oct 21, 2016 07:49

tankadillo: Aug 15, 2006

what if wikileaks actually had a team of people that included someone with PR/marketing skills and they all agreed on a strategy to actually take down their opponents

# ? Oct 21, 2016 15:06

StashAugustine: Mar 24, 2013; Do not trust in hope- it will betray you! Only faith and hatred sustain.

TraderStav posted:

Honestly cannot think of a single thing that could be leaked that would give my vote to trump at this point.

At this point they could find an email showing Hillary personally shooting Vince Foster for knowing too much about her lesbian lover's attempts to launder cattle futures money for Libyan terrorists and Trump would still manage to do something awful enough to take the headlines within 48 hours

# ? Oct 21, 2016 15:21

FAUXTON: Jun 2, 2005; spero che tu stia bene

tankadillo posted:

what if wikileaks actually had a team of people that included someone with PR/marketing skills and they all agreed on a strategy to actually take down their opponents

Yeah what if

# ? Oct 21, 2016 15:32

TraderStav: May 19, 2006; It feels like I was standing my entire life and I just sat down

StashAugustine posted:

At this point they could find an email showing Hillary personally shooting Vince Foster for knowing too much about her lesbian lover's attempts to launder cattle futures money for Libyan terrorists and Trump would still manage to do something awful enough to take the headlines within 48 hours

Am I a cynic in that I expect all of these behaviors out of high level leaders and exposing it doesn't mean much to me? I have an ideal state in mind where this doesn't occur but the realist in me suppresses that.

On the other hand, I find Trump to be just a horrible and stupid human being and that's my motivation for him not being in power.

# ? Oct 21, 2016 15:47

bump_fn: Apr 12, 2004; _{two of them}

TraderStav posted:

Am I a cynic in that I expect all of these behaviors out of high level leaders and exposing it doesn't mean much to me? I have an ideal state in mind where this doesn't occur but the realist in me suppresses that.

On the other hand, I find Trump to be just a horrible and stupid human being and that's my motivation for him not being in power.

are you saying ... trump ... is bad...?

# ? Oct 21, 2016 15:59

TraderStav: May 19, 2006; It feels like I was standing my entire life and I just sat down

bump_fn posted:

are you saying ... trump ... is bad...?

More like a dumb boob who couldn't hang with all of the pro level games that are played at that level.

# ? Oct 21, 2016 16:09

Fangz: Jul 5, 2007; Oh I see! This must be the Bad Opinion Zone!

The well necessarily needs to be poisoned at this point because the only explanation for Assange to delay any further significant releases to this period of time is to limit the possibility of people to analyse, debunk, verify or put it in the proper context. At some point the assumption of good faith cannot be maintained.

Further releases now should be ignored.

# ? Oct 21, 2016 16:21

fishmech: Jul 16, 2006; by VideoGames; Salad Prong

Fangz posted:

The well necessarily needs to be poisoned at this point because the only explanation for Assange to delay any further significant releases to this period of time is to limit the possibility of people to analyse, debunk, verify or put it in the proper context. At some point the assumption of good faith cannot be maintained.

Further releases now should be ignored.

well don't forget, there's already over 1.5 million people who have already voted (According to the christian science monitor newspaper, 1.5 million had voted by october 17), and there'll be even more even just by the end of next week. 37 states have some sort of early voting now.

even if assange had something really big released right now, there's a ton of people for whom it would be too late to change their minds, as their votes are already in.

# ? Oct 21, 2016 17:35

Nonsense: Jan 26, 2007; Can't post for 17 hours!

O'Keefe was a much more worrying independent actor than anything Assange was going to do. And O'Keefe has jack and poo poo so the GOP is dead for 8 more years, the goal now is to prevent Republicans from reaching mid-term polls. I hope Trump hangs around to help keep them home in 2018.

# ? Oct 21, 2016 20:44

Doorknob Slobber: Sep 10, 2006; by Fluffdaddy

A Neurotic Jew posted:

is that little boy ok because oh my god that is terrifying

# ? Oct 21, 2016 20:52

FAUXTON: Jun 2, 2005; spero che tu stia bene

Doorknob Slobber posted:

is that little boy ok because oh my god that is terrifying

Maybe a little bruised but that's a power wheels thing so it's basically a plastic shell with a small motor and battery inside. Probably scared the hell out of him more than anything. I'd be terrified if I was that kid and just got ran over by my rear end in a top hat sister's tractor.

# ? Oct 21, 2016 21:01