|
BGrifter posted:His final answer was probably his best moment of any of the debates too. agreed, but im not sure it's really that favorable for trump that the only time he seemed like a genuine human being capable of telling the truth was when he was praising HRC
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2016 05:31
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 15:57 |
|
|
zxqv8 posted:Is it normal that I kind of want to vomit until there's nothing left to vomit after all of this Do what I do and drink copious amounts of water after the debate. It helps with the alcoholic binge I participated in this debate, at least.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2016 05:32
|
|
|
Sharks Eat Bear posted:agreed, but im not sure it's really that favorable for trump that the only time he seemed like a genuine human being capable of telling the truth was when he was praising HRC Yeah, with his tone on that answer I was half expecting it to end with "she never gives up .... but I do. Good night."
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2016 05:33
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/bubbaprog/status/785320227257155584
gohmak fucked around with this message at 05:38 on Oct 10, 2016 |
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2016 05:35
|
|
|
WHOOPS posted:Clinton interrupted, like, once and acknowledged it immediately and apologized. Who the gently caress would consider that "interrupting more"? People that think being calm means pacing the stage looking like a creep, interrupting the other candidate and mods and rambling/ranting about unrelated bullshit Who What Now posted:Hello, Bizzaro While repeatedly bitching he was being rebuked by the mods SocketWrench fucked around with this message at 05:40 on Oct 10, 2016 |
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2016 05:37
|
|
|
Matthews told Maddow that Rudy has become a lot more unhinged than he used to be.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2016 05:40
|
|
|
WHOOPS posted:Clinton interrupted, like, once and acknowledged it immediately and apologized. Who the gently caress would consider that "interrupting more"? Sexists with whom it doesn't really register that he's interrupting because talking over women is normal to them. Or people who only watched that particular 5 seconds of the debate I guess.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2016 05:44
|
|
|
socialsecurity posted:What has she done to make you view her so negatively? I'm no political junky, so my views are probably fairly incomplete. I don't research these things too intensively, but neither am I just staring at a TV soaking up every word that CNN or whoever the gently caress supports her is saying without question. Too much of my exposure to this election has probably come through inaccurate or incomplete sources, comedians, satirists and plain old ignoramuses, so I'm hardly in any position of authority on this topic. To answer your question, I guess I'm simply not convinced by her past that her recent shift to the left is motivated by anything more than political expedience. For all his faults, one of the reasons I found Sanders compelling is because of his apparent consistency. Obviously, people change and so too do their opinions. Even Bernie wasn't a saint and said/did a lot of stupid poo poo, but his political record presented me with a set of values that comes close to my own idealized version of myself, so I probably got taken in by that fantasy to some degree. Perhaps I just need to dig deeper to find it, but I simply do not get that sense from Hillary. I guess I'm just too cynical to think she's being at all sincere with her current positions. I'll take 'fake it til you make it' if it leads to a more progressive government, but I don't have to like that it wasn't honestly motivated. With that said, I'll take someone who had to be dragged to the left over Trump any day. In all likelihood, he would just buckle under the pressures of office and become another milquetoast, forgotten president, but he's proven to be so volatile I'm just not really comfortable with taking that chance.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2016 05:45
|
|
|
I was so caught off-guard, I almost choked on the Laffy Taffy I was eating; thanks a lot, rear end in a top hat! <  >Holy poo poo, this is loving amazing. 
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2016 05:50
|
|
|
Bad Moon posted:CNN super pac guy comparing Trump to Putin puppet Yanukovich. good, because he's tweeting the moment with a #lockherup to boot.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2016 05:52
|
|
|
zxqv8 posted:I'm no political junky, so my views are probably fairly incomplete. I don't research these things too intensively, but neither am I just staring at a TV soaking up every word that CNN or whoever the gently caress supports her is saying without question. Too much of my exposure to this election has probably come through inaccurate or incomplete sources, comedians, satirists and plain old ignoramuses, so I'm hardly in any position of authority on this topic. It's spelled "junkie"
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2016 05:52
|
|
|
zxqv8 posted:.To answer your question, I guess I'm simply not convinced by her past that her recent shift to the left is motivated by anything more than political expedience. The idea that Clinton is some sort of centrist is a myth.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2016 05:52
|
|
|
That's all true, but she has also admitted to being a moderate and prefers to govern "from the center-left to the center-right". But she's as progressive as our political system allows and I don't feel bad in voting for her. Unfortunately if the House and Senate don't flip it doesn't matter much anyway.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2016 05:56
|
|
|
sweet thursday posted:It's spelled "junkie" Noted.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2016 05:59
|
|
|
Casimir Radon posted:Matthews told Maddow that Rudy has become a lot more unhinged than he used to be. i've heard more than a few people arguing that giuliani is exhibiting dementia so, if true, the GOP campaign 2016, a crazy man with a senile man as his hype man
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2016 06:01
|
|
|
Your Dunkle Sans posted:I was so caught off-guard, I almost choked on the Laffy Taffy I was eating; thanks a lot, rear end in a top hat! < RIP shawty lo
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2016 06:01
|
|
|
porfiria posted:It's almost impossible for Trump to win at this point. I really wish I had your confidence.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2016 06:03
|
|
|
boner confessor posted:i've heard more than a few people arguing that giuliani is exhibiting dementia "WHAT! WHAT! ...NO HONESTLY, WHAT??!"
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2016 06:03
|
|
|
Just Offscreen posted:I really wish I had your confidence. It's completely true if the margins by which he seems to have lost women in this debate are accurate. But that's a big if.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2016 06:03
|
|
|
Regardless of Clinton's Actual political leanings she will still be under pressure from progressive groups to move leftwards and I won't be happy until she does. 
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2016 06:04
|
|
|
Just Offscreen posted:I really wish I had your confidence.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2016 06:05
|
|
|
Pollyanna posted:Regardless of Clinton's Actual political leanings she will still be under pressure from progressive groups to move leftwards and I won't be happy until she does. This is the argument I've been making to my Bernout friends and relatives. The thing is, if you refuse to vote for her now that she's made all these promises, you have deliberately refused to make yourself a part of her coalition. Then, if your darkest dreams come true and she pivots to devouring college students to fuel her blood-soaked rampages across the Middle East, nobody cares that you won't vote for her to be re-elected, you didn't bother to do it in the first place! Whereas no politician is comfortable jeopardizing a part of their winning coalition. Be part of that, and even if she's the most calculating vampire ever to murder a political rival, placating you is now in her self-interest.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2016 06:08
|
|
|
Crows Turn Off posted:Well, the problem is that you're wrong right here. She hasn't had a recent shift to the left, she has always been one of the most liberal politicians in government. She's always been further left than her husband and Obama now. Her and Sanders voted in agreement greater than 90% of the time - despite the insistence of Sanders supporters, very little changed in her platform once she started working with Sanders. The "90% of the time" thing is meaningless as both candidates differed in how far they wanted to take things. For example I'm sure both Sanders and Hillary would vote for a bill that would raise the taxes on the rich by 2%. However, given the opportunity to chose where they would like the tax rate to be at, the two candidates would end at different points of where they'd feel comfortable. To add to that, Hillary's platform has shifted since prior the primaries. Her new college plan covers just about everyone except the rich, she went against TPP just before the first debate when Sanders was already making a lot of noise, she took a historic high wage for a national minimum wage while still a $15 wage on a much larger scale than before. There are a few other things as well that are different now than from her platform pre-primary.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2016 06:10
|
|
|
zxqv8 posted:To answer your question, I guess I'm simply not convinced by her past that her recent shift to the left is motivated by anything more than political expedience. I really don't get this criticism. It's a politician's job to observe their constituency and adjust their policies to better reflect what their voters want.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2016 06:12
|
|
|
Keeshhound posted:I really don't get this criticism. It's a politician's job to observe their constituency and adjust their policies to better reflect what their voters want. Changing your mind in light of newer evidence has somehow become a weakness these days and it's one of the stupidest things
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2016 06:15
|
|
|
EugeneJ posted:She committed a crime Hello, stranger from the distant past, and welcome to the United States of America, where someone who has not been charged with, much less convicted of a crime should not be punished for it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2016 06:23
|
|
|
sweet thursday posted:Changing your mind in light of newer evidence has somehow become a weakness these days and it's one of the stupidest things It is possible to find the change acceptable without believing that it's sincere. It's also okay if someone dislikes insincerity, whether or not their perception is fully accurate. Clearly, I don't know what's going on behind the scenes and likely never will. Maybe my perception is flat wrong and she's a loving gilded god waiting to be Sainted upon her death. Or maybe I'm wrong in the other direction and she's the most crooked person to ever walk the Earth and will usher in the Apocalypse, riding the pale mare. If we ever do find out, it'll probably be in 2075 or whenever poo poo is finally declassified and we can know for sure. As I intimated earlier, I'll happily accept more progressive governance, whatever the motivation that drove it. But I still don't think she's sincere and whether or not that's a simple truth of politics, I don't have to like it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2016 06:25
|
|
|
zxqv8 posted:It is possible to find the change acceptable without believing that it's sincere. I mean, by definition no because you think she's going to change on a whim.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2016 06:26
|
|
|
zxqv8 posted:It is possible to find the change acceptable without believing that it's sincere. It's also okay if someone dislikes insincerity, whether or not their perception is fully accurate. If you really want to know then do your own research. Internet message boards are a terrible source of information. punk rebel ecks fucked around with this message at 06:39 on Oct 10, 2016 |
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2016 06:27
|
|
|
zxqv8 posted:Is it normal that I kind of want to vomit until there's nothing left to vomit after all of this? Trump is a dead loving duck, and will not win this election. Obviously, I bet my SA account on this so maybe I'm not the most impartial poster here, but its a for sure done deal at this point. The only question remaining is whether Hillary will have to suffer through 4 years of an rear end in a top hat GOP congress blocking her every day, of if a complete and total annihilation of the GOP will occur to the point where the Dems seize total power in congress for at least 2 years.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2016 06:27
|
|
|
Trump did not appear to interrupt her 80 times like in the last one, and honestly did seem to have a more calm temperament, despite the ridiculous and vicious things he was saying. He wasn't sputtering like an idiot quite so much even though his answers were just as dumb as ever. It appears that people tend to judge debates more by the candidates' temperament and demeanor more than the actual words they say, so I can see why more people think trump did better this time. That said, holy poo poo gently caress Donald Trump and gently caress anyone who supports him Jesus loving Christ
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2016 06:28
|
|
|
Politicians automatically disregard their beliefs in favor of what the majority wants, and if what the majority wants changes, so does their opinion. It's nothing new. If Clinton's worst quality is that she's a liar, then I can live with that, because Trump's worst quality is that he's a loving retard and that's way more dangerous in a seat of power.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2016 06:29
|
|
|
well I'm not sleeping tonight
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2016 06:32
|
|
|
Quorum posted:This is the argument I've been making to my Bernout friends and relatives. The thing is, if you refuse to vote for her now that she's made all these promises, you have deliberately refused to make yourself a part of her coalition. Then, if your darkest dreams come true and she pivots to devouring college students to fuel her blood-soaked rampages across the Middle East, nobody cares that you won't vote for her to be re-elected, you didn't bother to do it in the first place! Whereas no politician is comfortable jeopardizing a part of their winning coalition. Be part of that, and even if she's the most calculating vampire ever to murder a political rival, placating you is now in her self-interest. I've made similar arguments. Regardless of who wins this election, in six months or two years or five years, a bill is going to come up for a vote for something that Bernie's Bros want... a bird sanctuary where all the birdseed is organically sourced by college educated baristas. Whatever. And some Senators will put their heads together and say, Who wants this? Oh, those socialist wackaloons. Well, if we give them what they want, will they vote for us in return? And they'll look at how much support Hillary got from them after she started pushing their goals, and they'll decide if they want to push these goals themselves appropriately.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2016 06:33
|
|
|
I just want to stress that I don't want Trump to win and wouldn't really be happy with the outcome, just not absolutely crushed. This is because I really think that if he did win, very little of the campaign bluster would survive actually doing the job and he'd probably slink through another unremarkable four years of the status-quo while the rest of the government does the real work.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2016 06:38
|
|
|
zxqv8 posted:I just want to stress that I don't want Trump to win and wouldn't really be happy with the outcome, just not absolutely crushed. Trump is part of the Republican party. If he wins then the Republicans would have the house, the supreme court, and likely the senate. His platform may not get that far, but the Republican's will. Again, if you want to learn leave here and go start reading.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2016 06:41
|
|
|
That ego maniac obsessed with wielding power and influence? Eh, he'd probably just go take a nap for 4 years.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2016 06:44
|
|
|
punk rebel ecks posted:Trump is part of the Republican party. If he wins then the Republicans would have the house, the supreme court, and likely the senate. His platform may not get that far, but the Republican's will. That is a fair point and one I hadn't fully considered. Fortunately he's probably not going to win, whatever my misconceptions about what his win would be like. Going to do research is a fine idea, but I can go start reading and find nothing of any use if I don't know where to start. Did you have any suggestions about useful sources? "Go start reading" is not really actionable advice if I don't know what's worth reading. I'm serious. I wouldn't even know where to start in terms of finding a reliable and truthful source of information about this topic. Google is unlikely to help me here either, since it knows too much about me to give me anything that falls outside the bubble it's created for me.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2016 06:49
|
|
|
boner confessor posted:i've heard more than a few people arguing that giuliani is exhibiting dementia
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2016 06:52
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 15:57 |
|
|
CJacobs posted:Politicians automatically disregard their beliefs in favor of what the majority wants, and if what the majority wants changes, so does their opinion. It's nothing new. If Clinton's worst quality is that she's a liar, then I can live with that, because Trump's worst quality is that he's a loving retard and that's way more dangerous in a seat of power.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2016 07:04
|
|
