| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
"the deficit is a problem. We need to get rid of the deficit.
"Then why didn't you pay taxes for it?
"What am i stupid? I didn't mean with MY money
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Trump has been reduced to citing self-selecting online polls from right wing websites for evidence that he 'won' the debate. Every remotely scientific poll shows him losing by a margin of around 2:1.
Clearly liberal media bias....
Trump has been reduced to citing self-selecting online polls from right wing websites for evidence that he 'won' the debate. Every remotely scientific poll shows him losing by a margin of around 2:1.Clearly liberal media bias....
Wait till he sees the "voter fraud" and loses an electoral college landslide.
Trump claims that he can't release his taxes because of auditing, but I suspect that it's more about litigation that involves differing claims of his net worth. As well as possible revelations about where he's getting his income from.
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Fact checks;
NPR
CNN
NYT
WP
USA Today
ABC
Politifact
factcheck.org
All of them found Trump to be significantly less truthful than Clinton... the well known liberal bias of reality rearing it's head again.
In other news, one of Clinton's sharper barbs was that Trump often stiffed people who'd done work for him. USA Today has an in-depth examination of this.
So if you stay at one of his hotels, you don't have to pay if you are not satisfied with the service.
Thank you, Betty White meme!
I'm only staying Trump hotels so I can always be unsatisfied and thus not pay for it.
So in polisci it's pretty broadly accepted that there aren't that many genuinely "undecided" voters. While many millions of people claim to be undecided, their voting patterns don't really reflect that. See the above quote, where we have a person who has claims to dislike both...and then proceeds to explain that Trump did everything right and nothing Clinton did was strong or good. Even that framing! Trump interrupting Clinton and arguing with the moderator is offered as a clear sign of assertive strength. His inability to actually answer any questions is apparently irrelevant to the analysis, even though CLINTON's answers to questions are brought as a mark against her! I deliberately didn't quote the person because I don't want this to come across as personal, and my apologies if it does, but this sort of phenomenon is pretty well established as a common behavior.
Moving on to purely personal opinion, I think that a lot of the "undecideds" we're seeing are people who have just predetermined their dislike of Clinton. Doesn't matter that Trump is an ignoramus who can't answer even basic questions like what the friggin' nuclear triad is... To make an overly long point shorter: it's sexism. Not really able to prove that because the US has never had a woman make it as far as Clinton has in our political sphere, but that's my assessment.
This is a reason I don't really care about debate analysis, most of it is lodged in the ideology of the person saying the analysis. I'd offer my own, but see above.
I hope some people found it useful and actually gained information on the candidates, how they think and how they behave.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think the pay-no-taxes thing is really highlighting just how bad our laws and tax code really are. There have been some interesting articles about how Trump has been getting all kinds of tax breaks, such as this one: Donald Trump Master of Tax Breaks
Here is another about how Trump exploits government programs to avoid tax.
Trump has thrived with government's generosity
I would say this would be damning stuff against Trump, but unfortunately, one of the sleazy NY politicians who took Trumps money, just happens to be Hillary. I'm sure the Clinton's had a great time at Trumps wedding.
I think most poor and middle class people see taxes as a burden they aspire to avoid as much as possible. Trump is living their dream. One day, maybe they could pay no taxes like him. They play the lottery, and could be rich like him one day. People who think that taxes are a necessary part of a functioning government, and realize that if the rich don't pay, they will have to pick up the slack are the type of people who think too much to ever vote Trump.
Issues that point toward systematic problems are generally more favorable to Trump because he is the "outsider" candidate, while Hillary represents the establishment. Trump is the candidate of Big Changes! Never mind that those changes are going in the opposite direction he says they will. Speaking of doing the opposite of what you say, I think it was odd that Hillary went after trump for "Trickle-down economics". She and Bill are lifelong, hardcore neoliberals, and have pushed trickle-down economics probably harder then Reagan.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Trump cheats -> Clinton is bad.
I love the reasoning. Everything has to feed back into how awful Clinton is.
I would frame it as Hillary accepted Trumps money, and they are booth dishonest grifters. Is it worse to bribe, or be bribed?
I look at the two, and see two crooks. Some people only see one crook.To each, their own.
Trump cheats -> Clinton is bad.
I love the reasoning. Everything has to feed back into how awful Clinton is.I would frame it as Hillary accepted Trumps money, and they are booth dishonest grifters. Is it worse to bribe, or be bribed?
I look at the two, and see two crooks. Some people only see one crook.
To each, their own.
I just love the false equivalency. Where was it criminal for Clinton to accept Trump's money for her Senatorial campaign back in the days when Trump was a cheerleader for Democrats? It takes money to win elections.
Trump cheats -> Clinton is bad.
I love the reasoning. Everything has to feed back into how awful Clinton is.I would frame it as Hillary accepted Trumps money, and they are booth dishonest grifters. Is it worse to bribe, or be bribed?
I look at the two, and see two crooks. Some people only see one crook.
To each, their own.
Do you have evidence of actual bribery?
Do you have evidence of actual bribery?
Trump cheats -> Clinton is bad.
I love the reasoning. Everything has to feed back into how awful Clinton is.I would frame it as Hillary accepted Trumps money, and they are booth dishonest grifters. Is it worse to bribe, or be bribed?
I look at the two, and see two crooks. Some people only see one crook.
To each, their own.
I would use the Clinton's political life pushing neoliberal policies that are against the interest of citizens, but directly benefits corporate and special interests that have given money, as proof.
Why has that been happening for decades? I don't think Hillary is incompetent, or fails to understand the consequences of her actions. I think she does things against the interest of the citizens for the direct benefit of those who pay her money. That fits my definition of bribery. Many people have a different definition.Any politicians who take campaign contributions are crooked, by that definition. Which is all of them.
You are arguing in bad faith. You know that is not what I am saying at all. We have already been over this in the election thread.
Politicians do things for people who give them money. Almost everyone understands that. If they get the money from special interests, they do favors for special interests. If they get the money from many individual donors, they do favors for that group.| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I see a mutant Oompa Loompa that has no business working near a chocolate factory, much less running this country. Hell pouring pee out of a boot is too much to trust him with.
Hillary is just...immoral.
Well it can't be about competence cause Donald proved he had none...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I was in and out of the room while the debate was on, but one moment that made me guffaw was Hillary on private prisons.
Daily Beast:
Hillary Clinton’s Pitch to End Private Prisons Is the Surprise Hit of the Presidential Debate
Which is interesting because it brings up the Pennsylvania Cash for Kids debacle that The White Knife used to post about back in the day.
Red State:
Hillary’s Claim That She Wants To End Private Prisons Is Rich, Seeing As How She’s The Queen Of Them
Which does a pretty good job of explaining my amusement, even if it is on a conservative website.
And, from a few months back:
The Intercenpt:
Private Prison CEO Unconcerned About Hillary Clinton’s Pledge to End His Industry
Meanwhile, un-debate related, but about prisons:
The Marshall Project:
|
|
If there was one thing that really was clear to me in the debate it's the fact that Trump is in power because of a protest movement. He repeatedly harped on the fact that how things have been done over the past 20 or 30 years isn't working. "You were in power -- why didn't you fix this?" "You've been doing it for 30 years -- it isn't working!" And so on. Hillary offers just more of the same, and even as a Hillary supporter, I agree with that. I don't see her as being a radical departure from what people like Obama have been doing. And there's a growing segment of the populace who really want radical change. Business as usual is ruining them and they're willing to grasp at any straw for some big, actual change.
Pfft. At least Max opposed slavery.
Clearly, we disagree.
[Look me up on wikipedia]
|
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Hillary offers just more of the same, and even as a Hillary supporter, I agree with that. I don't see her as being a radical departure from what people like Obama have been doing. And there's a growing segment of the populace who really want radical change. Business as usual is ruining them and they're willing to grasp at any straw for some big, actual change.
I don't see it that way at all.
Rather, each Reagan and then Bush junior both enacted radical change in the form of massively shifting the tax burden from the wealthy to the middle class AND the benefits of government from the poor to the wealthy. Then Clinton and Obama worked to slowly walk those changes back.
Thus, a Clinton administration or 'business as usual' (for the Democrats) would mean a continued improvement of the economy and especially the wealth imbalance. A Trump administration would mean a return to the radical changes which have caused the very problems people are concerned about.
Thus, it isn't 'business as usual' which is ruining people... it's radical change.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
RE: Trump claims he won all the polls after the debate.
Which were actually website surveys that allow you to vote multiple times.
Hahahahaha hahahahaha hahahahaha hahahahaha hahahahaha hahahahaha hahahahaha hahahahaha hahahahaha hahahahaha hahahahaha hahahahaha hahahahaha hahahahaha hahahahaha.
Well, it shows how excited his followers are, and excitement is proof of winning, I suppose...? XD
But I thought all his supporters were afraid to be outted by the liberal media so they're hiding in deep cover.
Isn't that his excuse for why the polls don't show him crushing it.
I'm so confused!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Well, let me put it this way... Trump would be excellent on a new version of Mythbusters, because he rejects our reality and substitutes his own.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Because that's all it could ever possibly be, right.
I didn't accuse you of anything sir, I'd moved on to a related-but-distinct topic. I don't know you and can't comment on your particular motivations, but yes I stand by what I said about undecideds IN GENERAL.
Moving right long, I'm solidly in CBDunkerson's camp on the "business as usual" topic. Obama presided over a solid recovery; since the ACA's main provisions rolled out in 2014 the uninsured rate has dropped from 18% to ~11%, including myself & my wife (Thanks, Obama!); the JCPOA was an elegant solution to an Iran that is too powerful to invaded and too advanced to bombed; he repealed DADT; he gave us Kagan & Sotomayor....the list goes on. Not that there isn't plenty to criticize, but I'll gladly take another 8 years of leftward trend.
Even if I was way more suspicious of Clinton, the idea of giving Trump power over at least one SCOTUS vacancy and over 90 federal judgeships sends ice down my spine. Thanks but no thanks.
As far as healthcare goes, my preference is that Clinton focuses on controlling costs. Those have been increasing way too quickly, by an industry that's all too ready to take advantage of extremely expensive treatments subsidized by the Government. I don't mind if healthcare companies make money, even make good money 'cuz that helps attract and pay researchers, but they've gone too far.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm not an expert on US medical infrastructure by any stretch, but I think a lot of the difficulties of Obamacare are it trying to work around the medical insurance industry. Unpopular aspects like the insurance mandate are *required* in order to pay for popular aspects like abolishing lifetime caps or preventing insurance companies from dropping those with preconditions. That's one simplified example, but the ACA would have been dead in the water if it didn't bend over backwards to keep the medical insurance industry profitable.
With a little luck and a lot of lobbying we might be able to reform the ACA closer and closer to genuine single-payer.
RE: Trump claims he won all the polls after the debate.
Which were actually website surveys that allow you to vote multiple times.
Hahahahaha hahahahaha hahahahaha hahahahaha hahahahaha hahahahaha hahahahaha hahahahaha hahahahaha hahahahaha hahahahaha hahahahaha hahahahaha hahahahaha hahahahaha.
What was actually going on was that his followers kept toggling airplane mode on their cellphones to keep getting a new IP number.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Because that's all it could ever possibly be, right.I didn't accuse you of anything sir, I'd moved on to a related-but-distinct topic. I don't know you and can't comment on your particular motivations, but yes I stand by what I said about undecideds IN GENERAL.
Moving right long, I'm solidly in CBDunkerson's camp on the "business as usual" topic. Obama presided over a solid recovery; since the ACA's main provisions rolled out in 2014 the uninsured rate has dropped from 18% to ~11%, including myself & my wife (Thanks, Obama!); the JCPOA was an elegant solution to an Iran that is too powerful to invaded and too advanced to bombed; he repealed DADT; he gave us Kagan & Sotomayor....the list goes on. Not that there isn't plenty to criticize, but I'll gladly take another 8 years of leftward trend.
Even if I was way more suspicious of Clinton, the idea of giving Trump power over at least one SCOTUS vacancy and over 90 federal judgeships sends ice down my spine. Thanks but no thanks.
Hold on, sir or ma'am. Your claim was pretty clear, that those not voting for Clinton, (or at least a large enough segment to warrant a statement about it), are doing so because she is a woman, and Im valling B.S. on that. I, and to a degree an speaking for at least some others, just do not trust her, not because it's a "her", but rather because of what Ive seen her do, say, and otherwise act.
Its pretty clear after reading here, that opinions of the two, and what their take away from the entire debate seems to be so completely in the eye of the beholder. However, claiming people are anti-Clinton because of sexism is very small minded and disingenuous. Im certain that there are some folks out there that do believ so, but implying that a lot of them fall into that camp is pretty close to many reasons they do not like care for Clinton's arguements or rhetoric. Namely that Ive seen her in action, and seen her swap her position on major things repeatedly, at the drop of a hat, then outright lie to try to claim she had always been in a particular camp. She contradicts herself all of the time, and when in the hotseat, acts very much like a person that is guilty of whatever she is accused of, and has very weak and unbelievable defenses.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Because that's all it could ever possibly be, right.I didn't accuse you of anything sir, I'd moved on to a related-but-distinct topic. I don't know you and can't comment on your particular motivations, but yes I stand by what I said about undecideds IN GENERAL.
Moving right long, I'm solidly in CBDunkerson's camp on the "business as usual" topic. Obama presided over a solid recovery; since the ACA's main provisions rolled out in 2014 the uninsured rate has dropped from 18% to ~11%, including myself & my wife (Thanks, Obama!); the JCPOA was an elegant solution to an Iran that is too powerful to invaded and too advanced to bombed; he repealed DADT; he gave us Kagan & Sotomayor....the list goes on. Not that there isn't plenty to criticize, but I'll gladly take another 8 years of leftward trend.
Even if I was way more suspicious of Clinton, the idea of giving Trump power over at least one SCOTUS vacancy and over 90 federal judgeships sends ice down my spine. Thanks but no thanks.
Hold on, sir or ma'am. Your claim was pretty clear, that those not voting for Clinton, (or at least a large enough segment to warrant a statement about it), are doing so because she is a woman, and Im valling B.S. on that. I, and to a degree an speaking for at least some others, just do not trust her, not because it's a "her", but rather because of what Ive seen her do, say, and otherwise act.
Its pretty clear after reading here, that opinions of the two, and what their take away from the entire debate seems to be so completely in the eye of the beholder. However, claiming people are anti-Clinton because of sexism is very small minded and disingenuous. Im certain that there are some folks out there that do believ so, but implying that a lot of them fall into that camp is pretty close to many reasons they do not like care for Clinton's arguements or rhetoric. Namely that Ive seen her in action, and seen her swap her position on major things repeatedly, at the...
Clinton did not change her positions at a "drop of a hat". She's been pulled leftward by the necessity imposed on her by the Bernie Sanders campaign and the importance of getting his supporters onboard. Also keep in mind that what she's signed up to advocate is not merely her own positions but of that of the Democratic Party Platform which was another product of vigorous negotiation between the Clinton and Sanders camps. It's why Sanders delayed conceding right up to the convention floor.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
As far as healthcare goes, my preference is that Clinton focuses on controlling costs. Those have been increasing way too quickly, by an industry that's all too ready to take advantage of extremely expensive treatments subsidized by the Government. I don't mind if healthcare companies make money, even make good money 'cuz that helps attract and pay researchers, but they've gone too far.
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.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm not an expert on US medical infrastructure by any stretch, but I think a lot of the difficulties of Obamacare are it trying to work around the medical insurance industry. Unpopular aspects like the insurance mandate are *required* in order to pay for popular aspects like abolishing lifetime caps or preventing insurance companies from dropping those with preconditions. That's one simplified example, but the ACA would have been dead in the water if it didn't bend over backwards to keep the medical insurance industry profitable.
With a little luck and a lot of lobbying we might be able to reform the ACA closer and closer to genuine single-payer.
One of the major problems is a law that prevents the US government from negotiating drug prices. This allows companies to inflate the price drastically and the Medicare system has no way of pushing back. Regular insurance companies then get to negotiate lower prices, but since that is privately negotiated there is no transparency on how much taxpayers are getting ripped off.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
@Caineach I was aware that many types of single-payer (UK comes to mind) achieve their lower medical costs by inviting medical companies to compete for government contracts and I've advocated for this in the past, but I didn't know the US had laws explicitly preventing something similar. What a travesty.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Well, putting aside the media that says he lost, the polls and focus groups that say he lost, the huge impact media spin has on public perception and the reality of Trump's posture, lies and interruptions, Trump himself sure ain't acting like he won.
He's blaming the microphone. The moderator. He's saying he was "going easy" on Clinton. He's acting like a kid losing at Monopoly.