The Clinton vs. Trump Debates Talkback!


Off-Topic Discussions

1,101 to 1,150 of 1,228 << first < prev | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as a favorite.
CBDunkerson wrote:


That was not just biased, but false. Most of the founders advanced the 'living document' view of constitutional interpretation (which Wallace grossly mischaracterized) rather than 'originalist' views favored by conservatives... like Wallace and Trump.

I think most of them had a "it's good enough to last a fee decades and then they'll redo it" view of the constitution...


KingOfAnything wrote:
BigDTBone wrote:
Trump was clearly talking about manufacturing JOBS not output. If you want to squabble about the semantics there then that is fine, but it at best moves the statement to a "yellow" for misleading. Parsing text for a gotcha while ignoring intent is also part of the bias I'm talking about.

Ummm

Trump wrote:
"We’re not making things anymore.”

Thank you for illustrating my point. Selective quote cutting and a parsing for gotchas instead of listening for intent.

"We’ve lost our jobs. We’ve lost our businesses. We’re not making things anymore.”

In full context he was clearly talking about individual citizens losing manufacturing jobs and finding it difficult to retool.

Now, if you want to argue that is due to automation and not trade deals that is fine. Mark it yellow, but it isn't a red statement.

Sovereign Court

Pathfinder Card Game, Companion, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Society Subscriber
BigDTBone wrote:

From the link, "Mr. Trump said the nuclear deal with Iran will “absolutely” let it obtain nuclear weapons."

NTY Marked it "red" for lie/false. Even the strongest supporters of the deal (Ie, Kerry/Obama) note that at best it delays a nuclear Iran. The deal itself ends in 10 years time (edit: I realized after I may have misremembered the exact time frame and unfortunately I am not able to look that up right now for time constraints. But, needless to say, it is a finite amount of time if not actually 10 years. Mea Culpa), which then allows Iran to continue weapons development without economic sanctions penalty.

NTY marked it "red" because of the timeline, which doesn't contradict his claim at all.

It was marked red because even after the deal expires (15 years, btw), Iran is still bound by Nuclear Non-Proliferation.

BigDTBone wrote:

From the link, Trump said "We’ve lost our jobs. We’ve lost our businesses. We’re not making things anymore.”

NYT marked this as "red" as well. But they also deliberately cut off his qualifying comment which directly followed in the debate. He added, "relatively speaking" And it is true that we far less manufacturing jobs relative to the past.

NYT snipped the quote and fact checked their snip, not the full statement.

The fact check was not about jobs, it was in the context of jobs. It was about the phrase "We're not making things anymore." The fact check shows this statement is untrue. This fact check is not addressing his larger point or the context in which it was made.

BigDTBone wrote:

From the link, Clinton said “We have 33,000 people a year who die from guns.” in the context of gun violence. While making a case about keeping guns away from dangerous actors. The statistic however is including deaths from suicide.

NYT marked this a "green" for true. This should have been marked "yellow" for misleading. The NYT even put the information about suicides in their blurb box but still left it green.

Clinton does not care about homicides only, she cares about people that die because of guns. That includes accidents and suicides. Dangerous actors can be dangers to themselves, and gun sales regulation proposals would reduce suicide rates as well as homicides.

Quote:

From the link, "Mr. Trump said Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg was forced to apologize for negative comments about him."

NYT marked this as "yellow" for questionable, because she wasn't formally/publicly made to apologize by a superior of some kind. However, this was clearly an instance to bowing to political pressure. She knew she misspoke, and she knew she needed to apologise. She made herself apologize. Trump's characterization of that was entirely appropriate.

I can kind of see where you are coming from on this one. Public outcry can force position changes from public officials. But those officials are usually ones that are accountable to the public through elections or similar. Ginsburg isn't. She would face no consequences beyond criticism if she chose not to reconsider her comments, so I think the NYT rating is fair.

Pretending the NYT fact check is biased just furthers the right-wing illusion of the world against them. We don't need to lower our standards of journalism to those of Fox News in order to win over the unswayable. Instead, challenge that perception of bias.

Sovereign Court

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Card Game, Companion, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Society Subscriber
BigDTBone wrote:
KingOfAnything wrote:
BigDTBone wrote:
Trump was clearly talking about manufacturing JOBS not output. If you want to squabble about the semantics there then that is fine, but it at best moves the statement to a "yellow" for misleading. Parsing text for a gotcha while ignoring intent is also part of the bias I'm talking about.

Ummm

Trump wrote:
"We’re not making things anymore.”

Thank you for illustrating my point. Selective quote cutting and a parsing for gotchas instead of listening for intent.

"We’ve lost our jobs. We’ve lost our businesses. We’re not making things anymore.”

In full context he was clearly talking about individual citizens losing manufacturing jobs and finding it difficult to retool.

Now, if you want to argue that is due to automation and not trade deals that is fine. Mark it yellow, but it isn't a red statement.

You just conceded that "We're not making things anymore" is a false statement.

Trump did not say, "We're losing jobs because working people are struggling to adapt to an increasingly automated manufacturing industry." Trump said that we are losing manufacturing jobs because America is "not making things anymore."

This shows that he does not understand the issues facing American workers, and was completely appropriate to fact check.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

It was clear that Wallace was trying to skew things for Trump, but the orange topped volcano didn't get the hint. That or his meds gave out in the first 45 minutes.

1. He opened with a direct attack on Clinton with her email situation.

2. He focused the first part of the debate on conservative wedge issues.

3. He spent the first part on the debate on Hillary's negatives, didn't even touch Trump until later.

4. He softballed Trump on the sexual assault issue.

5. He did his best to give Trump a face saving out on the question of accepting the results of the electoral process and Trump blew that completely. He could have had his pie and eaten it to with an answer along the lines. "Of course, unless we have reason to suspect the result." He would have totally gotten away with that answer, but by that point his control pills had worn off completely and he dug the hole for Clinton to push him into.

6. Wallace framed his questions on Medicare and Social Security on the conservative mantra that "we can't afford it", as a given fact, which should have been another opening for Trump to capitalize on. Wallace framed his question in a matter to pushing the audience into the idea that benefit cuts should be an assumed first step.

7. Wallace flat out lied on the stimulus bill to give Trump his edge on that question.

8. And then of course he avoided all of these topics which would have been weak points for Trump: (being lazy I lifted this list from a Daily Kos, but I stand by it.)

- Climate change

- Family and medical leave

- How to lift people out of poverty.

- How to help the middle class.

- Education.

- Equal pay.

- Energy or, God forbid, renewable energy.

- Child care.

- Minimum wage.

- Collective bargaining rights.

- Are corporations people?

- Money in politics.

- Reining in Wall Street abuses.

No that I'm surprised. After all Fox has been Trump Paradise for the last decade. Trump is still the candidate they want to win, despite any recent indications to the contrary.


KingOfAnything wrote:
BigDTBone wrote:

From the link, "Mr. Trump said the nuclear deal with Iran will “absolutely” let it obtain nuclear weapons."

NTY Marked it "red" for lie/false. Even the strongest supporters of the deal (Ie, Kerry/Obama) note that at best it delays a nuclear Iran. The deal itself ends in 10 years time (edit: I realized after I may have misremembered the exact time frame and unfortunately I am not able to look that up right now for time constraints. But, needless to say, it is a finite amount of time if not actually 10 years. Mea Culpa), which then allows Iran to continue weapons development without economic sanctions penalty.

NTY marked it "red" because of the timeline, which doesn't contradict his claim at all.

It was marked red because even after the deal expires (15 years, btw), Iran is still bound by Nuclear Non-Proliferation.

BigDTBone wrote:

From the link, Trump said "We’ve lost our jobs. We’ve lost our businesses. We’re not making things anymore.”

NYT marked this as "red" as well. But they also deliberately cut off his qualifying comment which directly followed in the debate. He added, "relatively speaking" And it is true that we far less manufacturing jobs relative to the past.

NYT snipped the quote and fact checked their snip, not the full statement.

The fact check was not about jobs, it was in the context of jobs. It was about the phrase "We're not making things anymore." The fact check shows this statement is untrue. This fact check is not addressing his larger point or the context in which it was made.

BigDTBone wrote:

From the link, Clinton said “We have 33,000 people a year who die from guns.” in the context of gun violence. While making a case about keeping guns away from dangerous actors. The statistic however is including deaths from suicide.

NYT marked this a "green" for true. This should have been marked "yellow" for misleading. The NYT even put the information about suicides in their blurb box but still

...

So, I could go through and address my disagreements with each of your points. But instead, I will just say that largely you are selectively snipping quotes (sometimes parts of sentences) and scrutinizing them outside of their context. (Or alternatively, dismissing context in favor of the snip.)

I find those activities to be disingenuous and academically dishonest. IE, you KNOW that you are judging the statement based on an intentional misrepresentation of the precursor idea.

But, I can also see that I'm not convincing anyone and I am prepared to drop it. I've said my piece, and I have no interest in just restating it to every new poster who comes along and scrutinizes a snip out of context.

Additionally, this was just my beef with the NYT article. I also think the media in general is doing this via other methods as well.


Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:

It was clear that Wallace was trying to skew things for Trump, but the orange topped volcano didn't get the hint. That or his meds gave out in the first 45 minutes.

1. He opened with a direct attack on Clinton with her email situation.

2. He focused the first part of the debate on conservative wedge issues.

3. He spent the first part on the debate on Hillary's negatives, didn't even touch Trump until later.

4. He softballed Trump on the sexual assault issue.

5. He did his best to give Trump a face saving out on the question of accepting the results of the electoral process and Trump blew that completely. He could have had his pie and eaten it to with an answer along the lines. "Of course, unless we have reason to suspect the result." He would have totally gotten away with that answer, but by that point his control pills had worn off completely and he dug the hole for Clinton to push him into.

6. Wallace framed his questions on Medicare and Social Security on the conservative mantra that "we can't afford it", as a given fact, which should have been another opening for Trump to capitalize on. Wallace framed his question in a matter to pushing the audience into the idea that benefit cuts should be an assumed first step.

7. Wallace flat out lied on the stimulus bill to give Trump his edge on that question.

8. And then of course he avoided all of these topics which would have been weak points for Trump: (being lazy I lifted this list from a Daily Kos, but I stand by it.)

- Climate change

- Family and medical leave

- How to lift people out of poverty.

- How to help the middle class.

- Education.

- Equal pay.

- Energy or, God forbid, renewable energy.

- Child care.

- Minimum wage.

- Collective bargaining rights.

- Are corporations people?

- Money in politics.

- Reining in Wall Street abuses.

No that I'm surprised. After all Fox has been Trump Paradise for the last decade. Trump is still the candidate they want to win, despite any recent...

I completely agree. Although, I think Trump was owed one after Martha Raddatz actually started debating him on the stage last week.

Plus he still lost. Which is great that the moderator was favoring him because he can't use that as an excuse.

Sovereign Court

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Card Game, Companion, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Society Subscriber
BigDTBone wrote:

So, I could go through and address my disagreements with each of your points. But instead, I will just say that largely you are selectively snipping quotes (sometimes parts of sentences) and scrutinizing them outside of their context. (Or alternatively, dismissing context in favor of the snip.)

I find those activities to be disingenuous and academically dishonest. IE, you KNOW that you are judging the statement based on an intentional misrepresentation of the precursor idea.

But, I can also see that I'm not convincing anyone and I am prepared to drop it. I've said my piece, and I have no interest in just restating it to every new poster who comes along and scrutinizes a snip out of context.

Additionally, this was just my beef with the NYT article. I also think the media in general is doing this via other methods as well.

You know, I agree that context is important. But, facts should support the context, not the other way around.

You read:
We are losing jobs. Therefore, we're not making things anymore.

NYT read (and fact checked):
We are losing jobs because we're not making things anymore.

Similarly, you read:
We have a problem with gun violence in America. Therefore, 330,000 die to guns each year.

NYT read (and fact checked):
We have a problem with gun violence in America, because 330,000 die to guns each year.

Correct me if I am wrong about how you interpreted these, but I think there is a pattern to what fact checks you objected to. Instead of thinking of the [checked fact] as supporting the context or overall argument of the candidate, you were treating the [checked fact] as the conclusion or result of the context. From that perspective, I can totally see the problems you pointed out.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
KingOfAnything wrote:
BigDTBone wrote:

So, I could go through and address my disagreements with each of your points. But instead, I will just say that largely you are selectively snipping quotes (sometimes parts of sentences) and scrutinizing them outside of their context. (Or alternatively, dismissing context in favor of the snip.)

I find those activities to be disingenuous and academically dishonest. IE, you KNOW that you are judging the statement based on an intentional misrepresentation of the precursor idea.

But, I can also see that I'm not convincing anyone and I am prepared to drop it. I've said my piece, and I have no interest in just restating it to every new poster who comes along and scrutinizes a snip out of context.

Additionally, this was just my beef with the NYT article. I also think the media in general is doing this via other methods as well.

You know, I agree that context is important. But, facts should support the context, not the other way around.

You read:
We are losing jobs. Therefore, we're not making things anymore.

NYT read (and fact checked):
We are losing jobs because we're not making things anymore.

Similarly, you read:
We have a problem with gun violence in America. Therefore, 330,000 die to guns each year.

NYT read (and fact checked):
We have a problem with gun violence in America, because 330,000 die to guns each year.

Correct me if I am wrong about how you interpreted these, but I think there is a pattern to what fact checks you objected to. Instead of thinking of the [checked fact] as supporting the context or overall argument of the candidate, you were treating the [checked fact] as the conclusion or result of the context. From that perspective, I can totally see the problems you pointed out.

Just quick points to inform on my reading of these, because I really do want move on. But, in the first quote I read "we're" (and heard in the debate) as "we as individual workers," and not "we as a nation." I think in context of jobs (which the full quote supports) that my read is more appropriate. However, the fact check was on the alternative read. Which I feel is a mischaracterization of the statement.

(Edit: and to the ear of an out-of-work person who lost a manufacturing job, and is having difficulty retooling - my read is the ONLY read. The other is literally a slap in the face.)

On the second, Clinton was speaking about (ie, the previous 5 or so minutes of conversation was about) gun violence vis a vis predatory crime / one person assaulting another person. However the statistic she provided was much broader context. I don't remember (ie, I could be wrong) but I don't think she even mentioned suicide in that segment. Also, I think there is a very strong case to remove suicide from the "gun violence" statistics altogether. Not that I don't think it is violent, but that I think it deserves it's own category because we should address it differently.

Jon Brazer Enterprises

I still can't believe that Trump use the time-tested, middle school "I know you are but what am I" tactic.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Speaking of his basic education, I've been researching that. Apparently, he was in detention quite often...

There's an article from the Post here.


I'm guessing Trump will try to make some grand challenge/claim in the next week or two, or something from Wikileaks maybe. If they had it though, they should have released it already. Last night was the last night that Hillary HAS to be on stage. It was the last night to force a confrontation and make her react to it personally, and not just through a surrogate or press release.

The time for a useful October Surprise is past, unless the charge is self-evident and irrefutable based on what is released.


The charge i have is stupidity of the highest order. Gross ineptitude with narcissistic personality disorder, and probably something else.

Also you may now call ME the Jedi Master.


My highschools a literal stones throw from NYMA.

The kids were a mix of military brats who wanted to get into west point, rich parents who's kids needed babysitters, and future violent offenders of america trying to stay out of juvie.

So not that much different than most other schools. The difference being that with the uniforms you never knew which roving pack of students you were dealing with until it was too late.


Thomas Seitz wrote:

The charge i have is stupidity of the highest order. Gross ineptitude with narcissistic personality disorder, and probably something else.

Also you may now call ME the Jedi Master.

I would call you captain obvious but i think that names already taken.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

It is, Hatti. Plus I'm pretty sure the other Captain wouldn't want me replacing his brother.


Go ahead, I don't get along with most of them anyway.

Sadly, Captain Obvious was already taken by the time I showed up.


Captain,

Nah. I'm good. If I'm going to be a commissioned officer it will be as
an Admiral.

Liberty's Edge

Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
Snowblind wrote:
captain yesterday wrote:
I would be shocked and appalled if he actually gets elected.
Almost half of America's voting population is for Trump as president. You should be shocked and appalled already.
I've passed the stages shocked and appalled, and have gone through disgust to settle in depression.

That's pretty much where I am ...


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Thomas Seitz wrote:

Captain,

Nah. I'm good. If I'm going to be a commissioned officer it will be as
an Admiral.

It's a cliche! trap!


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Marc Radle wrote:
Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
Snowblind wrote:
captain yesterday wrote:
I would be shocked and appalled if he actually gets elected.
Almost half of America's voting population is for Trump as president. You should be shocked and appalled already.
I've passed the stages shocked and appalled, and have gone through disgust to settle in depression.
That's pretty much where I am ...

Well, at least on the next SNL you can watch Alec Baldwin deeply enjoy doing his impersonation of Mango Unchained.


Pillbug Toenibbler wrote:
Marc Radle wrote:
Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
Snowblind wrote:
captain yesterday wrote:
I would be shocked and appalled if he actually gets elected.
Almost half of America's voting population is for Trump as president. You should be shocked and appalled already.
I've passed the stages shocked and appalled, and have gone through disgust to settle in depression.
That's pretty much where I am ...
Well, at least on the next SNL you can watch Alec Baldwin deeply enjoy doing his impersonation of Mango Unchained.

Probably right after they rip the piss out of Trump for demanding that SNL be cancelled.


Pathfinder Maps, Starfinder Maps Subscriber
BigDTBone wrote:
Rednal wrote:
For those who want some of the highlights, here's the New York Times' fact-check page. Clinton was broadly truthful - Trump, perhaps as expected, did quite a bit of lying and exaggerating.

Sigh I wish that we could get these reports without the editorializing and without the academic dishonesty on the part of the fact checkers.

Trump is an egregious liar without having to use parlor tricks to make him seem worse. But when the media plays these cute games with selective quote cuts (removing qualifying statements either before or after the quote, for example) and with cutesy quips, it just fans the flames of those who would chose to ignore these reports because of "bias."

The media is biased in favor of Clinton. We need to own and recognise that, and we need to accept that it is not helping her. Some modicum of freaking self-control is in order because it makes it very difficult to make the case for Clinton / against Trump when these reports are so obviously toyed with.

[/rant]

I wonder if they're doing so in order to gain points (brownie or othewise) down the track for having backed the winner?

In Australia we have a number of political reporters who qualify or vacillate until it becomes clear how things are going to come out. At which point they begin making strident statements along the lines of "We've always said...." <insert whatever has become the obvious outcome>. Inevitably followed by gleeful, after-the-fact analysis of why the losers were always going to lose.

Political commentary is depressing when it's partisan. I don't care what you think - I need you to do the fact checking, comparisons and research that I don't have time to do. Not tell me who you think should get the nod.

[/subsidiary rant]


Steve Geddes wrote:
BigDTBone wrote:
Rednal wrote:
For those who want some of the highlights, here's the New York Times' fact-check page. Clinton was broadly truthful - Trump, perhaps as expected, did quite a bit of lying and exaggerating.

Sigh I wish that we could get these reports without the editorializing and without the academic dishonesty on the part of the fact checkers.

Trump is an egregious liar without having to use parlor tricks to make him seem worse. But when the media plays these cute games with selective quote cuts (removing qualifying statements either before or after the quote, for example) and with cutesy quips, it just fans the flames of those who would chose to ignore these reports because of "bias."

The media is biased in favor of Clinton. We need to own and recognise that, and we need to accept that it is not helping her. Some modicum of freaking self-control is in order because it makes it very difficult to make the case for Clinton / against Trump when these reports are so obviously toyed with.

[/rant]

I wonder if they're doing so in order to gain points (brownie or othewise) down the track for having backed the winner?

In Australia we have a number of political reporters who qualify or vacillate until it becomes clear how things are going to come out. At which point they begin making strident statements along the lines of "We've always said...." <insert whatever has become the obvious outcome>. Inevitably followed by gleeful, after-the-fact analysis of why the losers were always going to lose.

Political commentary is depressing when it's partisan. I don't care what you think - I need you to do the fact checking, comparisons and research that I don't have time to do. Not tell me who you think should get the nod.

[/subsidiary rant]

If anything, I'd guess it's because of Trump's attacks on and threats against them. Not to mention playing them for free publicity - like the press event that turned into a free ad for his hotel.

And in many ways, the media's been boosting him throughout much of the campaign - especially in the primary. He basically ran his primary on free media time while other candidates were making ad buys. That continued, in lesser form, well into the summer.


Pathfinder Maps, Starfinder Maps Subscriber

That's kind of what I meant. Report his antics with no comment when nobody knows what's the outcome will be. Now it's become clearer what's likely to happen - it's safe to start acting like you've been against him from the start.

I'm just guessing. I don't really know from here, of course. But it's a common trend in Australian political reporting - neutral reporting until the issue is decided at which point people fall all over themselves claiming they supported the winning position all along.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Steve Geddes wrote:

That's kind of what I meant. Report his antics with no comment when nobody knows what's the outcome will be. Now it's become clearer what's likely to happen - it's safe to start acting like you've been against him from the start.

I'm just guessing. I don't really know from here, of course. But it's a common trend in Australian political reporting - neutral reporting until the issue is decided at which point people fall all over themselves claiming they supported the winning position all along.

If there was such a turning point, I'd say it was before he was clearly losing. The "press conference" that was supposedly his announcement that he was giving up on birtherism may have been a trigger. A ton of live coverage, serving both as campaign ad and hotel ad, for a couple statements on birtherism, including blaming Clinton. The media felt played and rightly so. Not the only such event, but that was the one that seemed to break the camel's back.

And that was two weeks before the first debate, near the top of his popularity.

This whole season really does raise the question of how journalists should handle politics and especially extreme candidates like Trump. Is there any responsibility beyond playing "he said, she said"? Perhaps the flaw isn't the bias against him now, but treating him as a serious candidate in the first place?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Maps, Starfinder Maps Subscriber

It's not really the place of a non-american to say in regards to trump, imo. We just don't understand the issues and the mood of the country. In my experience of talking to people about it I've never met anyone even remotely sympathetic to Trump and only one person antagonistic to Clinton (and she's very much of the view that anyone even slightly to the left is incompetent and/or corrupt). It's a nice change though, since usually my wife and I are the only people we know interested in US politics. At least it's making the news this time around. :)

Your query about journalistic response to extremists is a universal problem and I'm definitely in favor of marginalising them until they make a strong case. It's broader than pure politics too - any time there's a documentary or investigative piece (down here at least) "both sides" have to get even airtime. Even when it's an issue where the science is settled and it shouldn't therefore be controversial, as far as public policy goes.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Dragoncat wrote:
Pillbug Toenibbler wrote:
Well, at least on the next SNL you can watch Alec Baldwin deeply enjoy doing his impersonation of Mango Unchained.
Probably right after they rip the piss out of Trump for demanding that SNL be cancelled.

I really want to see actual human Alec Baldwin-as-Trump doing his schtick, then a cut to McKinnon-as-Clinton calling him a puppet, then a quick cut to a Trump puppet yelling, "NO! YOU'RE THE PUPPET!"


Steve Geddes wrote:
[O]nly one person antagonistic to Clinton (and she's very much of the view that anyone even slightly to the left is incompetent and/or corrupt).

Probably because on a global political spectrum she is firmly right-of-center.

[/snark]


Steve Geddes wrote:
In my experience of talking to people about it I've never met anyone even remotely sympathetic to Trump

That's not really surprising. One of the problems facing Trump is the fact that anyone with any sort of international perspective generally does not support him.

That's one of the factors behind his so-called "Mormon problem," for example. Mormon men are de facto required to serve two years as missionaries, which, at a minimum, puts them well outside their comfortable family home life (even if they get sent to someplace like Orlando, Florida), and often sends them to parts of the world that I, who consider myself a seasoned internationalist, would not go.

Any American that you're likely to talk to in Australia is unlikely to be a Trump supporter, because any American who is a Trump supporter is unlikely to visit Canada, let alone Australia. This, of course, means that there's not a lot of opportunities for Trump's ideas to be spread.


I'm still hoping Evan McMullin can win Utah over Trump. It's only 6 electoral votes, but a win could give actual walk-the-walk Christians/Evangelicals/Mormons an alternative to build a new coalition/party around and dump the Party of Trump.

I still disagree with most of McMullin's positions and policies, but he seems sane and likely willing to do what's best for the country over lockstep party conformity.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pillbug Toenibbler wrote:
I'm still hoping Evan McMullin can win Utah over Trump. It's only 6 electoral votes, but a win could give actual walk-the-walk Christians/Evangelicals/Mormons an alternative to build a new coalition/party around and dump the Party of Trump.

I think that might well result in the GOP splitting into THREE camps;

Bigots United - Trump
Ayn Rand devotees - Ryan
Mormons - Romney


Mormons tend to be better-educated, and they have a lot of experience with talk about religious bans (they used to be targeted by them). They're also twice as likely as evangelicals to say that immigration is good for the country. As I understand it, the bigotry Trump spouts makes them very uncomfortable—and unlike the majority of evangelicals, they don't tend to see that as an acceptable flaw in a candidate.


Pathfinder Maps, Starfinder Maps Subscriber
BigDTBone wrote:
Steve Geddes wrote:
[O]nly one person antagonistic to Clinton (and she's very much of the view that anyone even slightly to the left is incompetent and/or corrupt).

Probably because on a global political spectrum she is firmly right-of-center.

[/snark]

I can't see how "probably because" makes sense here.

The Exchange

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Terry Tate Makes America Great.

Yeah, if you know Terry Tate's excellent work, you know that this is. I lol'd happily by the end.


AdmiralAckbar wrote:
Thomas Seitz wrote:

Captain,

Nah. I'm good. If I'm going to be a commissioned officer it will be as
an Admiral.

It's a cliche! trap!

Can't it be both?


Kobold Cleaver wrote:
Mormons tend to be better-educated, and they have a lot of experience with talk about religious bans (they used to be targeted by them). They're also twice as likely as evangelicals to say that immigration is good for the country. As I understand it, the bigotry Trump spouts makes them very uncomfortable—and unlike the majority of evangelicals, they don't tend to see that as an acceptable flaw in a candidate.

Agreed. The Mormons I've known have been friendly, respectful people.

And to be brutally honest, their beliefs are supported by exactly as much empirical evidence as are the beliefs of "mainstream" Christianity.


bugleyman wrote:
And to be brutally honest, their beliefs are supported by exactly as much empirical evidence as are the beliefs of "mainstream" Christianity.

The Mormons have labored under the disadvantage of having their founding myth set in the fairly recent past. It's much easier to hand wave away the really weird stuff when it supposedly happened thousands of years ago.


To be fair, the atheists such as myself don't hand wave away any inconsistencies, no matter how many millennia have passed since their inception, but that's probably best discussed in a separate thread.

That is, all the Mormons I've known personally have been fine people. :)


Steve Geddes wrote:
BigDTBone wrote:
Steve Geddes wrote:
[O]nly one person antagonistic to Clinton (and she's very much of the view that anyone even slightly to the left is incompetent and/or corrupt).

Probably because on a global political spectrum she is firmly right-of-center.

[/snark]

I can't see how "probably because" makes sense here.

That is because I cannot read and you should ignore the things I write. :(


Pathfinder Maps, Starfinder Maps Subscriber

Heh. Unlikely, but cheers.

Shadow Lodge Contributor, RPG Superstar 2010 Top 8

I've known some deeply unpleasant Mormons.

I live in a very Mormon area though, so that's probably just a matter of statistics.


The debates are over. Hillary won all three debates. The election is over. Trump has lost. Its all really over now.


Farael the Fallen wrote:
The debates are over. Hillary won all three debates. The election is over. Trump has lost. Its all really over now.

I wouldn't declare the election over until the fat orange lady man-child concedes defeat.


Snowblind wrote:
Farael the Fallen wrote:
The debates are over. Hillary won all three debates. The election is over. Trump has lost. Its all really over now.
I wouldn't declare the election over until the fat orange lady man-child concedes defeat.

Or at least until the votes are counted.

I wouldn't rely on him to concede, but I'm not going to pretend it isn't over either.


I would rely on him suing everyone and then losing badly. Again.


John Ziegler, in an opinion column for Mediaite, has some thoughts on that.

Liberty's Edge

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Companion Subscriber
Farael the Fallen wrote:
The debates are over. Hillary won all three debates. The election is over. Trump has lost. Its all really over now.

Okay, no need to bother going to the voting station then.

Whoops, Trump won!


2 people marked this as a favorite.
bugleyman wrote:
Kobold Cleaver wrote:
Mormons tend to be better-educated, and they have a lot of experience with talk about religious bans (they used to be targeted by them). They're also twice as likely as evangelicals to say that immigration is good for the country. As I understand it, the bigotry Trump spouts makes them very uncomfortable—and unlike the majority of evangelicals, they don't tend to see that as an acceptable flaw in a candidate.

Agreed. The Mormons I've known have been friendly, respectful people.

And to be brutally honest, their beliefs are supported by exactly as much empirical evidence as are the beliefs of "mainstream" Christianity.

On the other hand, the Mormons continue to excommunicate women for advocating equal rights. They continue to hold anti-equality postions for women, they discrimminate according to sexual orientation, oppose the rights to LGBTQ marriage, and deny the right of choice in matters of abortion. There have been an increasing enough of mass exodus events because of the continued repressiveness of Mormon church doctrine.

And I'm pretty much equally skeptical of the beliefs of "mainstream" Christianity as well.

RPG Superstar 2009 Top 16

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pillbug Toenibbler wrote:
Nope. Impeaching Trump just puts Pence in the big chair, and Pence is a full-on government dismantler with a big dose of hate for non-Christian, non-straight, non-white, and non-male people.

Pence is the monster that realized a good disguise will get him a lot further, a lot longer than godzillaing around like Trump.

And yes I did just make godzilla a verb

1,101 to 1,150 of 1,228 << first < prev | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Gamer Life / Off-Topic Discussions / The Clinton vs. Trump Debates Talkback! All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.