The Clinton vs. Trump Debates Talkback!


Off-Topic Discussions

351 to 400 of 1,228 << first < prev | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | next > last >>
Dark Archive

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Snorter wrote:
CrusaderWolf wrote:
Poorly worded or overly vague language can cause a ton of problems; if you're striving to stay below some arbitrary page count your odds of that sort of unworkable language increases.

Such as can be seen, in so many roleplaying rulebooks.

<ducks for cover>

~riots through the thread, burning and pillaging as we go~

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Sharoth wrote:
OTOH I remember all the BS that Clinton pulled when her husband was in office...

Such as?

Scarab Sages

Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:

Actually Healthcare companies get much of their research at bottom dollar rates by appropriating universities to do their work for them.

Also much of healthcare research doesn't go into making new products, but variations of existing ones in order to have new intellectual property to market when patents on existing drugs expire. So company will be working to create a new Drug B which is nothing more than a functional clone of their existing Drug A which will lose it's patent soon. Said company will then lobby to force hospitals to replace Drug A with Drug B. Drug A will then be manufactured by outside foreign companies which will sell Drug A at vastly cheaper prices compared to Drug B, but will be forbidden to sell Drug A within the US. Which is why you have people traveling to foreign countries to obtain Drug A which does everything that Drug B does only vastly cheaper.

Much of Healthcare research isn't being spent to create new effective drugs as much as new drug monopolies.

What Big Pharma is truly afraid of is the fact that we'll discover that we don't need them at ALL. We can do all our research at publicly funded universities, make drug technology open for anyone to produce at modest costs while making modest profits, delivering healthcare at more modest prices.

This same scam exists in the UK, and is one of the reasons the National Health Service (NHS) is under financial pressure, though of course every effort is made to deflect attention elsewhere, such as immigrant 'health tourists' or the lifestyle choices of the working classes.

The issue of restricted access to publicly funded research is addressed within the 'Digital Democracy' section of Corbyn's manifesto for the UK.

Jeremy Corbyn just announced a plan to end one of the biggest scams in modern history

Obviously, this is only part of the solution, and efforts must still be made to overturn the current ban on allowing the NHS to shop around for generic drugs, which has been allowed to prosper due to filibustering by Conservative politicians.

Tory health minister deliberately blocks law to give NHS cheap drugs when patents expire

Of course, this has been ridiculed by the Murdoch press, as Corbyn wasting time he should be spending on REAL issues, to chase trivialities only of minority interest to beardy-wierdy, loony-left, quiche-eating Trotskyites at their champagne socialist anti-British soirees, where they stamp on the flag and spit at a photo of the Queen (Gawd Bless'Er!).

Rather than what it actually is, which is breaking one of the strands in the web of political corruption and corporate welfare, and saving our health service, universities and scientists millions of pounds per year, in accessing information we've already paid for.


I have determined that Donald Trump is nothing more then a moldy Jack-o-Lantern on top of an expensive suit being manipulated using pulleys and speakers and such by small Don Bluth-ian mice bent on not only eradicating humans and cats, but to also get revenge on Disney for not bankrolling Fievel, An American Tale.


Anytime you see a poll that makes you scratch your noggin (or scratch wherever you keep your brain), just remember that once, when polled, 4% of Americans said they had been decapitated.

This kinda explains a lot, actually.

Between this and the great pumpkin lie, I'm feeling a bit unmoored from reality this morning.


I've known about the pumpkin squash connection for years, it's the reason my mom always insisted on growing s+~@loads of pumpkins every year. :-)


Well, it may not actually be a lie....


Rednal wrote:
Well, it may not actually be a lie....

Well, that's reassuring. I'm not sure I can deal with a lie of that magnitude. {goes back to munching cinnamon toast}


CBDunkerson wrote:
Sharoth wrote:
OTOH I remember all the BS that Clinton pulled when her husband was in office...
Such as?

Well, I can't speak for snorter, but there are a variety of things she did while Bill held various offices.

Her decades of involvement with Wal Mart is a big one. That also ties in with supporting 'most favored nation' trade status for China.
Then there is the Superpredator stuff, which is symbolic of her support for racist laws from the crime bill, to welfare reform.
Hillary has been a shill for the worst aspects of corporate America, and supported deregulation of the financial industry, such as the Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000.

EDIT: As someone who spends time with rats, I can assure they they are not evil enough to be Trump.

Scarab Sages

captain yesterday wrote:
I have determined that Donald Trump is nothing more then a moldy Jack-o-Lantern on top of an expensive suit being manipulated using pulleys and speakers and such by small Don Bluth-ian mice bent on not only eradicating humans and cats, but to also get revenge on Disney for not bankrolling Fievel, An American Tale.

Oh hell no! We are not taking the blame for this!


Justin Norvegicus wrote:
captain yesterday wrote:
I have determined that Donald Trump is nothing more then a moldy Jack-o-Lantern on top of an expensive suit being manipulated using pulleys and speakers and such by small Don Bluth-ian mice bent on not only eradicating humans and cats, but to also get revenge on Disney for not bankrolling Fievel, An American Tale.
Oh hell no! We are not taking the blame for this!

That's good. I still have a $50 bet that Trump is actually Snowball or The Brain in a robot "human" suit.


You'd think if Donald Trump was something pretending to be human that they'd pick something more believable.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Snorter wrote:
Of course, this has been ridiculed by the Murdoch press, as Corbyn wasting time he should be spending on REAL issues, to chase trivialities only of minority interest to beardy-wierdy, loony-left, quiche-eating Trotskyites at their champagne socialist anti-British soirees, where they stamp on the flag and spit at a photo of the Queen (Gawd Bless'Er!).

[Strokes beard]

Man, I wish a had some quiche right now.

Liberty's Edge

Pillbug Toenibbler wrote:
Justin Norvegicus wrote:
captain yesterday wrote:
I have determined that Donald Trump is nothing more then a moldy Jack-o-Lantern on top of an expensive suit being manipulated using pulleys and speakers and such by small Don Bluth-ian mice bent on not only eradicating humans and cats, but to also get revenge on Disney for not bankrolling Fievel, An American Tale.
Oh hell no! We are not taking the blame for this!
That's good. I still have a $50 bet that Trump is actually Snowball or The Brain in a robot "human" suit.

I have $20 on him being three kids in a bad suit.


Rednal wrote:
Well, it may not actually be a lie....

The pie is not a lie?


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
Turin the Mad wrote:
Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
Right now Clinton seems to have a 4 point lead. Libertarians generally vote Republican. If Johnson throws support to Trump, that could decide the election with his 6 percent.
If the Libertarian voters are taking cues from this year's ticket, they won't touch Trump. Johnson and Weld detest Trump from everything I've read.
Perhaps but the Libertarians in general detest Democrats in general, and Clinton in particular, a lot more.

As a libertarian, I detest the Libertarian Party.


Angry Mob wrote:
Snorter wrote:
CrusaderWolf wrote:
Poorly worded or overly vague language can cause a ton of problems; if you're striving to stay below some arbitrary page count your odds of that sort of unworkable language increases.

Such as can be seen, in so many roleplaying rulebooks.

<ducks for cover>

~riots through the thread, burning and pillaging as we go~

We like who we like, we hate who we hate.....

Liberty's Edge

Fergie wrote:
Her decades of involvement with Wal Mart is a big one.

Decades? Wasn't it six years?

Quote:
her support for racist laws from the crime bill

Again, I think it's hard to make a case for that having been "racist" given that two-thirds of the Congressional Black Caucus voted for it. Unless you are suggesting bias against some other 'race'?

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Pathfinder Accessories Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Pillbug Toenibbler wrote:
Justin Norvegicus wrote:
captain yesterday wrote:
I have determined that Donald Trump is nothing more then a moldy Jack-o-Lantern on top of an expensive suit being manipulated using pulleys and speakers and such by small Don Bluth-ian mice bent on not only eradicating humans and cats, but to also get revenge on Disney for not bankrolling Fievel, An American Tale.
Oh hell no! We are not taking the blame for this!
That's good. I still have a $50 bet that Trump is actually Snowball or The Brain in a robot "human" suit.

Would that make Mike Pence Pinkie? narf


1 person marked this as a favorite.
CBDunkerson wrote:
Fergie wrote:
Her decades of involvement with Wal Mart is a big one.

Decades? Wasn't it six years?

Quote:
her support for racist laws from the crime bill
Again, I think it's hard to make a case for that having been "racist" given that two-thirds of the Congressional Black Caucus voted for it. Unless you are suggesting bias against some other 'race'?

IIRC, a couple of years ago, Citizen Quest pointed out John McWhorter's argument that a similar number of members of the CBC voted for the crack/cocaine disparity in sentencing laws, so that couldn't possibly be racist. I asked if segregation was racist even though Booker T. Washington supported it, but I don't recall getting an answer.


Comrade Anklebiter wrote:
CBDunkerson wrote:
Fergie wrote:
Her decades of involvement with Wal Mart is a big one.

Decades? Wasn't it six years?

Quote:
her support for racist laws from the crime bill
Again, I think it's hard to make a case for that having been "racist" given that two-thirds of the Congressional Black Caucus voted for it. Unless you are suggesting bias against some other 'race'?
IIRC, a couple of years ago, Citizen Quest pointed out John McWhorter's argument that a similar number of members of the CBC voted for the crack/cocaine disparity in sentencing laws, so that couldn't possibly be racist. I asked if segregation was racist even though Booker T. Washington supported it, but I don't recall getting an answer.

I think I made the argument that a law could wind up having racist effects, but the intent might not have been racist at the time.

Arguably though in this case most of the Black Caucus seems to have been brought along by a combination of some things they did like in the bill and fear that if this failed, they might wind up with an even harsher bill - passed with more Republican support.

Liberty's Edge

Comrade Anklebiter wrote:
IIRC, a couple of years ago, Citizen Quest pointed out John McWhorter's argument that a similar number of members of the CBC voted for the crack/cocaine disparity in sentencing laws, so that couldn't possibly be racist.

Crack was having a devastating impact on many african american communities. Thus, CBC members voting for strict sentencing made sense at the time... just as it did to many white legislators who voted for it. No racism required.

Continuing and expanding those harsh sentencing practices after the problem had been brought under some control... that's when it became a racial issue and you stopped seeing african americans (and most liberals) supporting it.

Quote:
I asked if segregation was racist even though Booker T. Washington supported it, but I don't recall getting an answer.

Wow, is that ever wrong.

Washington did NOT support segregation. Rather he publicly counseled that protesting against it was counter-productive... while privately backing efforts to end it.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
thejeff wrote:
Comrade Anklebiter wrote:
CBDunkerson wrote:
Fergie wrote:
Her decades of involvement with Wal Mart is a big one.

Decades? Wasn't it six years?

Quote:
her support for racist laws from the crime bill
Again, I think it's hard to make a case for that having been "racist" given that two-thirds of the Congressional Black Caucus voted for it. Unless you are suggesting bias against some other 'race'?
IIRC, a couple of years ago, Citizen Quest pointed out John McWhorter's argument that a similar number of members of the CBC voted for the crack/cocaine disparity in sentencing laws, so that couldn't possibly be racist. I asked if segregation was racist even though Booker T. Washington supported it, but I don't recall getting an answer.

I think I made the argument that a law could wind up having racist effects, but the intent might not have been racist at the time.

Arguably though in this case most of the Black Caucus seems to have been brought along by a combination of some things they did like in the bill and fear that if this failed, they might wind up with an even harsher bill - passed with more Republican support.

So they voted for a less racist law in order to prevent a more racist law?


That's politics.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Comrade Anklebiter wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Comrade Anklebiter wrote:
CBDunkerson wrote:
Fergie wrote:
Her decades of involvement with Wal Mart is a big one.

Decades? Wasn't it six years?

Quote:
her support for racist laws from the crime bill
Again, I think it's hard to make a case for that having been "racist" given that two-thirds of the Congressional Black Caucus voted for it. Unless you are suggesting bias against some other 'race'?
IIRC, a couple of years ago, Citizen Quest pointed out John McWhorter's argument that a similar number of members of the CBC voted for the crack/cocaine disparity in sentencing laws, so that couldn't possibly be racist. I asked if segregation was racist even though Booker T. Washington supported it, but I don't recall getting an answer.

I think I made the argument that a law could wind up having racist effects, but the intent might not have been racist at the time.

Arguably though in this case most of the Black Caucus seems to have been brought along by a combination of some things they did like in the bill and fear that if this failed, they might wind up with an even harsher bill - passed with more Republican support.

So they voted for a less racist law in order to prevent a more racist law?

If that's how you want to put it.

Part of the nasty compromising nature of politics. Everyone whoever supported any law that had any racist part is forever after tainted with racism whenever it's useful to do so.

My real opinion on this whole thing is that whatever the nature of Clinton's support for possibly racist laws when she wasn't even in office, ignoring the massive support she has from blacks now is even more racist. Using her racism as an argument to oppose her ignores all those backing her now.


thejeff wrote:
Comrade Anklebiter wrote:
CBDunkerson wrote:
Fergie wrote:
Her decades of involvement with Wal Mart is a big one.

Decades? Wasn't it six years?

Quote:
her support for racist laws from the crime bill
Again, I think it's hard to make a case for that having been "racist" given that two-thirds of the Congressional Black Caucus voted for it. Unless you are suggesting bias against some other 'race'?
IIRC, a couple of years ago, Citizen Quest pointed out John McWhorter's argument that a similar number of members of the CBC voted for the crack/cocaine disparity in sentencing laws, so that couldn't possibly be racist. I asked if segregation was racist even though Booker T. Washington supported it, but I don't recall getting an answer.

I think I made the argument that a law could wind up having racist effects, but the intent might not have been racist at the time.

Arguably though in this case most of the Black Caucus seems to have been brought along by a combination of some things they did like in the bill and fear that if this failed, they might wind up with an even harsher bill - passed with more Republican support.

We've known for some time that Hillary Clinton isn't Bernie Sanders. And yes, the Clintons have a problematic mixed history with minority issues. A lot of time and evolution have passed since those days, and it should be noted that for all the merits of Bernie Sander's campaign, he made absolutely no resonance with the minority sector, most likely because he had a complete inability to relate to minority issues. His taking on a member of BLM to handle minority relations seems to have been a complete bust as there no evidence that he learned anything from doing so. On the other hand, Bill Clinton spent the office stipend they give Ex-Presidents on setting up his office in Harlem itself. And playing a decent sax lick apparantly doesn't hurt either.


Be back later!


Comrade Anklebiter wrote:
Be back later!

Whatever you say, Julian.


Comrade Anklebiter wrote:
Snorter wrote:
...beardy-wierdy, loony-left, quiche-eating Trotskyites at their champagne socialist anti-British soirees, where they stamp on the flag and spit at a photo of the Queen (Gawd Bless'Er!).

[Strokes beard]

Man, I wish a had some quiche right now.

I like quiche too, but if you have access to a kitchen, like spicy-ish food, and have a bit of time, try eggs in hell. Works for any meal of the day.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

There is something from the debate I don't get. Maybe I missed something, I don't know, but

For eight years or more I have been hearing that BHO or HRC will "take our guns away" even though neither one of them ever said they would, ever.

Now I heard Donald Trump, say, from his own mouth, that "Stop and Frisk," is good because we need to "take their guns away."

Now he may have been referring to actual convicted criminals who are in possession of firearms illegally, but he didn't clarify that. he seemed to me to be saying that if someone was in a "gang" or looked "bad" they should have their gun taken away.

Am I missing something here? Did a candidate for President of the United States actually say that he advocates taking guns away from lawfully gun carrying citizens?


3 people marked this as a favorite.

I interpret that as "we have to take their ( their referencing minorities) guns away"


MMCJawa wrote:
I interpret that as "we have to take their ( their referencing minorities) guns away"

Not directly, but effectively yes. That (along with the whole "it's unconstitutional" thing) is one of the big reasons I'm so vehemently against Stop and Frisk. The fact that it's from NY doesn't help either.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Terquem wrote:

There is something from the debate I don't get. Maybe I missed something, I don't know, but

For eight years or more I have been hearing that BHO or HRC will "take our guns away" even though neither one of them ever said they would, ever.

Now I heard Donald Trump, say, from his own mouth, that "Stop and Frisk," is good because we need to "take their guns away."

Now he may have been referring to actual convicted criminals who are in possession of firearms illegally, but he didn't clarify that. he seemed to me to be saying that if someone was in a "gang" or looked "bad" they should have their gun taken away.

Am I missing something here? Did a candidate for President of the United States actually say that he advocates taking guns away from lawfully gun carrying citizens?

No. Of course not. Everyone knows that Stop & Frisk only applies to urban thugs and they don't carry lawfully. So, no problem. This won't apply to real gun-loving Americans.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Terquem wrote:

There is something from the debate I don't get. Maybe I missed something, I don't know, but

For eight years or more I have been hearing that BHO or HRC will "take our guns away" even though neither one of them ever said they would, ever.

Now I heard Donald Trump, say, from his own mouth, that "Stop and Frisk," is good because we need to "take their guns away."

Now he may have been referring to actual convicted criminals who are in possession of firearms illegally, but he didn't clarify that. he seemed to me to be saying that if someone was in a "gang" or looked "bad" they should have their gun taken away.

Am I missing something here? Did a candidate for President of the United States actually say that he advocates taking guns away from lawfully gun carrying citizens?

Yes. But when Trumps says he's attempting to reach out to non-whites, he's actually just trying to convince whites with the same old dogwhistles, to alleviate their fears that they might be seen as racist (they don't care about acting racist, just being labeled racist). They--most of his white supporters and the NRA--are fine with policies such as Stop & Frisk because they know their skin color means it won't happen to them. 20+ years ago, the NRA was totally vocally against open-carry when non-whites start doing it.

Edit: Multiple ninja'd.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Terquem wrote:

There is something from the debate I don't get. Maybe I missed something, I don't know, but

For eight years or more I have been hearing that BHO or HRC will "take our guns away" even though neither one of them ever said they would, ever.

Now I heard Donald Trump, say, from his own mouth, that "Stop and Frisk," is good because we need to "take their guns away."

Now he may have been referring to actual convicted criminals who are in possession of firearms illegally, but he didn't clarify that. he seemed to me to be saying that if someone was in a "gang" or looked "bad" they should have their gun taken away.

Am I missing something here? Did a candidate for President of the United States actually say that he advocates taking guns away from lawfully gun carrying citizens?

You'll find that for all their hair-trigger bombast, the NRA crowd remains rather silent when 2nd Amendment rights of blacks and other minorities are concerned.


Captain Battletoad wrote:
MMCJawa wrote:
I interpret that as "we have to take their ( their referencing minorities) guns away"
Not directly, but effectively yes. That (along with the whole "it's unconstitutional" thing) is one of the big reasons I'm so vehemently against Stop and Frisk. The fact that it's from NY doesn't help either.

IIRC, it was specifically in response to a question about black crime, so it was pretty directly about minorities.


thejeff wrote:
Captain Battletoad wrote:
MMCJawa wrote:
I interpret that as "we have to take their ( their referencing minorities) guns away"
Not directly, but effectively yes. That (along with the whole "it's unconstitutional" thing) is one of the big reasons I'm so vehemently against Stop and Frisk. The fact that it's from NY doesn't help either.

IIRC, it was specifically in response to a question about black crime, so it was pretty directly about minorities.

It's been multiple days since the debate so I'd have to go back and look for the context of the comment, but in all practicality, it doesn't much matter whether it was aimed directly or indirectly at minorities. The mere fact that he supports Stop and Frisk (regardless of his reasons behind doing so) is mind-numbing, but in no way (sadly) surprising.


Captain Battletoad wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Captain Battletoad wrote:
MMCJawa wrote:
I interpret that as "we have to take their ( their referencing minorities) guns away"
Not directly, but effectively yes. That (along with the whole "it's unconstitutional" thing) is one of the big reasons I'm so vehemently against Stop and Frisk. The fact that it's from NY doesn't help either.

IIRC, it was specifically in response to a question about black crime, so it was pretty directly about minorities.

It's been multiple days since the debate so I'd have to go back and look for the context of the comment, but in all practicality, it doesn't much matter whether it was aimed directly or indirectly at minorities. The mere fact that he supports Stop and Frisk (regardless of his reasons behind doing so) is mind-numbing, but in no way (sadly) surprising.

It does kind of feed into the "Barbarians Are At The Gates" theme he's been beating on his Fascist drums.


Captain Battletoad wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Captain Battletoad wrote:
MMCJawa wrote:
I interpret that as "we have to take their ( their referencing minorities) guns away"
Not directly, but effectively yes. That (along with the whole "it's unconstitutional" thing) is one of the big reasons I'm so vehemently against Stop and Frisk. The fact that it's from NY doesn't help either.
IIRC, it was specifically in response to a question about black crime, so it was pretty directly about minorities.
It's been multiple days since the debate so I'd have to go back and look for the context of the comment, but in all practicality, it doesn't much matter whether it was aimed directly or indirectly at minorities. The mere fact that he supports Stop and Frisk (regardless of his reasons behind doing so) is mind-numbing, but in no way (sadly) surprising.

It matters only in thinking about why his gun-loving and/or can't trust the government supporters mostly won't be bothered by this - because they know it won't affect them.

Scarab Sages

Fergie wrote:
Well, I can't speak for snorter, but there are a variety of things she did while Bill held various offices.

To be clear, I wasn't denouncing Clinton with that 'like', but was just offering support for the idea that Trump admitting he's not paying taxes is not going to hurt his popularity with his own base.

As much as it angers everyone else, the people who follow him have a bizarre idea, that one day they'll make it rich, and they don't want their road to Moneybags Mansion to be hindered by the IRS.

Also, if he is exploiting a legal loophole, then he's not doing anything wrong in their eyes. The fault lies with the politicians who wrote the tax laws so incompetently, that they contain such loopholes.

That's why any attempt to attack him on the taxes front could become a terrible can of worms that his opponents wish they had not opened.
Not only is there the possibility that Democrat politicians (not just HRC, but those lower down ticket) could be revealed to be doing the same as Trump, but the whole point of Trump's argument is that the current establishment is crooked, and lifting the lid on shoddily-written tax laws with loopholes you could drive a truck through would strengthen his case.


I can't think of a case where debates have had any real impact on an election since Kennedy-Nixon.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Snorter wrote:

To be clear, I wasn't denouncing Clinton with that 'like', but was just offering support for the idea that Trump admitting he's not paying taxes is not going to hurt his popularity with his own base.

As much as it angers everyone else, the people who follow him have a bizarre idea, that one day they'll make it rich, and they don't want their road to Moneybags Mansion to be hindered by the IRS.

Also, if he is exploiting a legal loophole, then he's not doing anything wrong in their eyes. The fault lies with the politicians who wrote the tax laws so incompetently, that they contain such loopholes.

That's why any attempt to attack him on the taxes front could become a terrible can of worms that his opponents wish they had not opened.
Not only is there the possibility that Democrat politicians (not just HRC, but those lower down ticket) could be revealed to be doing the same as Trump, but the whole point of Trump's argument is that the current establishment is crooked, and lifting the lid on shoddily-written tax laws with loopholes you could drive a truck through would strengthen his case.

"Temporarily embarrassed millionaires"

The Exchange

11 people marked this as a favorite.

I'll pitch in after having watched the debate on youtube last night. I am somewhat ashamed to admit that this is the first time I've actually bothered to watch the candidates speak - so far my opinions of them have been determined entirely by accpeting the aggregate of secondary sources as truth. And even though I am aware that a televised debate is also not exactly a full and comprehensive representation of who these two people are, I do think that in the course of these two hours there was enough to make some get-feeling oriented judgment calls.

I'll start with Clinton. I have led to believe that she is a grey, uncharismatic official who made it to being candidate the same way the longest term employee in any company gets chosen to promotion: by default. She was simply well positioned.
Well, I can't claim to have any in depth knowledge of who she is, what she truly stands for, or the truth behind multiple allegations of corruption - but I know one thing for sure. She's impressive. She was well composed, well balanced, sharp and quick and intelligent. You could see it in her eyes and hear it in her voice. Sure, I know she's been prepped (for me that's another point in her favor - when you judge an athlete for her performance it is obvious her training is a crucial part of her success and debating is no different), but not many people could have made such a flawless performance out of the toolbox of statements and talk points she had. I have no idea why anyone would consider he an unexciting candidate in regards to her bearings and style. As for policies - well, I've heard a bunch of things that any liberal should be glad to hear, but who the hell knows the complexities behind them, or what I didn't hear, or what I thought I heard but actually didn't.

Now, as for Trump... for once, I don't think the mass media mislead me about this person. He was violent and abrasive, downright childlike and petulant at times (he literally countered one of Clinton's points by interjecting with a "not" at some point), incoherent and rambling. His rhetoric was composed of a combination of fanning hate against foreigners of any kind and a preposterous self self-aggrandizement.

I don't have the time or mental capacity to delve fully into the U.S elections. So far I have chosen not to vote in them, because I don't think I have the right to impact the lives of U.S citizens living in America while I live in another country. However, in this election I'm going to use my privilege as a citizen for the first time to vote from overseas. I have seen Trump and I fear him. I have seen Clinton and was convinced that if nothing else, she's at the very least intelligent and impressive. There is no doubt in my mind to the importance of this election going the right way.

Dark Archive

Rednal wrote:

...

I believe small businesses are the majority of jobs, though?

51% are employed by large businesses us census beauru data of 2012 report published in 2015


Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
I can't think of a case where debates have had any real impact on an election since Kennedy-Nixon.

Coverage of the Machado shaming story seems to be running pretty frequently on Telemundo, Univision, and other Latinx media here in Florida. The news just broke, but old school Cuban-Americans don't seem too happy Trump's company sought ways to break the Cuban Trade Embargo. If the former (and his record of hiring cheaper foreign workers for Mar-a-Lago and golf resorts) increases LatinX GotV efforts and the latter convinces Republican-leaning Cuban-Americas to stay home, Florida is more likely to go Clinton on Election Day, which portends doom for Trump's election chances.


Pillbug Toenibbler wrote:
Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
I can't think of a case where debates have had any real impact on an election since Kennedy-Nixon.
Coverage of the Machado shaming story seems to be running pretty frequently on Telemundo, Univision, and other Latinx media here in Florida. The news just broke, but old school Cuban-Americans don't seem too happy Trump's company sought ways to break the Cuban Trade Embargo. If the former (and his record of hiring cheaper foreign workers for Mar-a-Lago and golf resorts) increases LatinX GotV efforts and the latter convinces Republican-leaning Cuban-Americas to stay home, Florida is more likely to go Clinton on Election Day, which portends doom for Trump's election chances.

Interestingly enough, Trump has picked up 30 percent of the Latino vote in Vegas which formerly went overwhelmingly for Obama. And those Cuban voters might remember that it was Obama that ended the Embargo.


Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
Pillbug Toenibbler wrote:
Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
I can't think of a case where debates have had any real impact on an election since Kennedy-Nixon.
Coverage of the Machado shaming story seems to be running pretty frequently on Telemundo, Univision, and other Latinx media here in Florida. The news just broke, but old school Cuban-Americans don't seem too happy Trump's company sought ways to break the Cuban Trade Embargo. If the former (and his record of hiring cheaper foreign workers for Mar-a-Lago and golf resorts) increases LatinX GotV efforts and the latter convinces Republican-leaning Cuban-Americas to stay home, Florida is more likely to go Clinton on Election Day, which portends doom for Trump's election chances.
Interestingly enough, Trump has picked up 30 percent of the Latino vote in Vegas which formerly went overwhelmingly for Obama. And those Cuban voters might remember that it was Obama that ended the Embargo.

Yeah, older Cuban-Americans in Florida probably wouldn't vote Clinton even before Obama ended the embargo, but many are now more likely to decide to not vote for Trump either. Normally they're pretty dependable voters, so it could help tilt the vote away from Trump.

Which seems weird to me, a non-Latina from the outside looking in to their media, but older Cuban-Americans in Florida seem to consider "anti-Castro" a top priority. Other Latinx Floridians don't seem to care one way or the other.


Captain Battletoad wrote:
Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
Turin the Mad wrote:
Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
Right now Clinton seems to have a 4 point lead. Libertarians generally vote Republican. If Johnson throws support to Trump, that could decide the election with his 6 percent.
If the Libertarian voters are taking cues from this year's ticket, they won't touch Trump. Johnson and Weld detest Trump from everything I've read.
Perhaps but the Libertarians in general detest Democrats in general, and Clinton in particular, a lot more.
As a libertarian, I detest the Libertarian Party.

Ha! And they all said libertarians and I could never find common ground. ;)

Comrade Anklebiter wrote:
IIRC, a couple of years ago, Citizen Quest pointed out John McWhorter's argument that a similar number of members of the CBC voted for the crack/cocaine disparity in sentencing laws, so that couldn't possibly be racist. I asked if segregation was racist even though Booker T. Washington supported it, but I don't recall getting an answer.

I was never a huge fan of Booker T. Washington (I think he made a lot of gains at the expense of stronger activists like Ida B. Wells), but it's worth considering that a policy can be racist without its supporters being racist. Many African-Americans thought segregation would help their community—they thought they could achieve economic uplift independent of whites with separate, but equal.

The mass incarceration laws were unarguably racist, but many of their supporters might have fully believed it would help everyone involved. Or, y'know, internalized racism. Also a possibility.

Drahlianna Moonrunner wrote:
Interestingly enough, Trump has picked up 30 percent of the Latino vote in Vegas which formerly went overwhelmingly for Obama.

Is that 30% of Latinxs, or 30% of GOP Latinxs? There's a big difference. :P


Snorter wrote:
Fergie wrote:
Well, I can't speak for snorter, but there are a variety of things she did while Bill held various offices.

To be clear, I wasn't denouncing Clinton with that 'like', but was just offering support for the idea that Trump admitting he's not paying taxes is not going to hurt his popularity with his own base.

As much as it angers everyone else, the people who follow him have a bizarre idea, that one day they'll make it rich, and they don't want their road to Moneybags Mansion to be hindered by the IRS.

Also, if he is exploiting a legal loophole, then he's not doing anything wrong in their eyes. The fault lies with the politicians who wrote the tax laws so incompetently, that they contain such loopholes.

That's why any attempt to attack him on the taxes front could become a terrible can of worms that his opponents wish they had not opened.
Not only is there the possibility that Democrat politicians (not just HRC, but those lower down ticket) could be revealed to be doing the same as Trump, but the whole point of Trump's argument is that the current establishment is crooked, and lifting the lid on shoddily-written tax laws with loopholes you could drive a truck through would strengthen his case.

If he actually thought that and wanted to make that argument, he'd release his tax info and make it.

Instead, he's hiding it. There's something in there that looks worse than hiding it does. Could be low taxes, could be less money than he pretends, could be something else, but he's hiding something.


Kobold Cleaver wrote:
Drahlianna Moonrunner wrote:
Interestingly enough, Trump has picked up 30 percent of the Latino vote in Vegas which formerly went overwhelmingly for Obama.
Is that 30% of Latinxs, or 30% of GOP Latinxs? There's a big difference. :P

I dunno. Even the Sheldon Adelson-owned Las Vegas Review-Journal still reports Clinton FAU-polling with a commanding lead over Trump in Nevada.

351 to 400 of 1,228 << first < prev | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Gamer Life / Off-Topic Discussions / The Clinton vs. Trump Debates Talkback! All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.