2016 US Presidential Election Thread XIII

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Status
Not open for further replies.
I think it's a bit of a stretch to call that a "gotcha" question for a POTUS candidate.


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference


It's 100% a gotcha question. He's at first prompted to name a leader he likes. Given his libertarian ideology, there's not many leaders (if any) that would be described as such at the moment. No matter what identifiable answer he gives, it will likely contradict his stance. Heck, he named Angela Merkel. Well, just said "Merkel." Angela Merkel is not his favorite leader. He was obviously flustered and searching for an answer. Because Matthews was obviously forcing this question down his throat. He was rushing the question and catching Johnson in an aha! moment. It was very clear that Matthews wanted the Aleppo gaffe 2.0, and he got it.

But from the get-go it's a hard question for a libertarian to definitively answer. I'm not excusing him, as I definitely see this incident as disqualifying, but I'm not going to act as though you ever see what Matthews did being geared towards Clinton or Trump (Clinton obviously would have no issue with this question anyways). I mean, look no further than the Aleppo gaffe itself. Compare the two incidents. The Aleppo thing was one of shock, where the anchor can't believe what he's hearing. It was genuine. Chris Matthews in this case is very clearly walking Johnson into a minefield and then pushing him around.
 
The Libertarians should dump Johnson and let Weld head the ticket.
They still won't get many votes, but Weld wouldn't embarrass himself/the party like Tokin' Gary.
 
It's 100% a gotcha question. He's at first prompted to name a leader he likes. Given his libertarian ideology, there's not many leaders (if any) that would be described as such at the moment.No matter what identifiable answer he gives, it will likely contradict his stance.

Eh. It's only a gotcha question if you're not the sharpest tool in the shed. If he were quick on his feet (which he obviously isn't), he could've easily answered "you know, I don't really have a favorite because no one really aligns with my political preferences. For instance, Putin is too... x, Merkel is too... y, Hollande is too... z."

Or he could've said "I like the way Merkel handles x but I don't like her stances on y and z because they go against my political beliefs."
 
I think it's a bit of a stretch to call that a "gotcha" question for a POTUS candidate.

Yeah, if that's a gotcha question then so is "can you explain any policy of your choice?" or "can you spell your name?"
 
Eh. It's only a gotcha question if you're not the sharpest tool in the shed. If he were quick on his feet (which he obviously isn't), he could've easily answered "you know, I don't really have a favorite because no one really aligns with my political preferences. For instance, Putin is too... x, Merkel is too... y, Hollande is too... z."

Or he could've said "I like the way Merkel handles x but I don't like her stances on y and z because they go against my political beliefs."


Like I said, I'm not defending him or making an excuse. Clearly he didn't know how to answer a simple yet important question.

That doesn't mean Chris Matthews wasn't very clearly out to get him. The same standard doesn't exist for "legitimate" candidates. All I'm saying is, it's a damn shame you don't see journalists head hunting and holding the two main candidates accountable. Not that Clinton would fumble such a question, but it wouldn't shock me if Trump did. Though, with Trump I'd more expect him to make his views up on the spot, given his track record.
 
It's absolutely a gotcha question, so was the one about Aleppo. I'm not saying he doesn't deserve it, because Gary Johnson is an absolute moron and the quicker we can dismiss him as a legitimate candidate the better, but they were both gotcha questions. "Who's your favorite world leader?" is designed to trip him up because the concept of "favorite" is an odd one to draw from when talking about foreign politicians. I couldn't name who my favorite world leader is. I can name some, sure, but the fundamental idea of asking who someone's favorite world leader is strikes me as odd.

Similarly, the Aleppo thing was clearly a test. If they really just wanted to know what his thoughts were, they'd have said "What will you do about Syria?" I understand that by asking about Aleppo specifically, they're focusing on the situation on the ground rather than the refugee crisis, but nonetheless, it seemed a bit gotcha to me.

Again, good for them. Gary Johnson sucks, and at this point getting him off my TV via ridicule is as good a manner as any. But let's not pretend they knew they were asking questions that could trip him up.
 
If that's a "gotcha" question for someone who is running for a position as a world leader then we are fucked!

If we're allowing this Palin/ Trump mentality to seep into all aspects of our lives, then we will be living in Idiocracy regardless if Trump is elected or not.


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference
 
Last edited:
And regarding sexism being thrown out at every opportunity by Clinton's supporters over people on the left refusing to get in line, it really is just too damn convenient. I've been called a sexist myself in here by otherwise level-minded people when I haven't even once made an actual comment going down that path, nor would I ever. Of course, anything that can be twisted into that manner by people not willing to actually hear someone's point can fall under that banner (such as some users totally not getting my point about the Bill Clinton fidelity issue).

Almost everything the left has criticized Clinton about, such as the paid speeches, are things they have criticized those involved with politics for years and decades. You can't suddenly just call someone a sexist for making the same argument they've made their entire political lives against everyone.




I think people have said misogynist things about Hillary Clinton since 1992.
 
Guys, Donald Trump wants us to watch a sex tape starring the beauty contestant he fat shamed.
 
Last edited:
Guys, Donald Trump wants us to watch a sex tape starring the beauty contestant he fat shamed.

That really was a masterful set up from the Clinton campaign. Trump had no idea who Clinton was talking about when she made her accusations, but they already had an ad made and aired right after the debate, and, Trump being Trump, would be baited into lashing out and thus perpetuating the story.

And now the 9-marriage, serial cheater tag team of Trump, Guiliani and Gingrich want to bring up Bill's infidelity. You know the Clinton campaign has prepared for this one.

Trump is too narcissistic and egotistical to realize he's doing exactly what they wanted him to do.
 
Yup. They knew he wouldn't be able to let it go.

And yes, I think the Clinton team is ready for the Bill attacks.

This goes back to even Obama, he and Clinton seem to be playing a different game than the GOP.




Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference
 
Even if Trump didn't take ridiculous and offensive stances, his willingness to be baited into petty attacks proves he is in no way fit to wield authority. A big part of the art of politics is not taking your opponent's bait! This man is the fucking dumbest fish in the pond, trying to nibble on every single type of bait there is.
 
his willingness to be baited into petty attacks proves he is in no way fit to wield authority.


this really gets to the heart of it, and the question i would pose to any Trump supporter: how can you trust this man with national security?

i fully accept that Trump represents "change," and he's given voice to a populism attractive to those who have felt left behind by globalization.

but doesn't this manic 3am tweeting gossip render him totally unfit any sort of security clearance? that everything you might like about him doesn't matter because of this stuff?

seriously.

this is a surreal campaign. W Bush represented lots of bad things -- indifference to knowledge, and a terrifying incursion of conservative Christianity into the White House. but it was all within the realm of what we could call "responsible" governance. (and i can't believe that i'm almost defending W Bush, of all people). McCain and Romney were all credible public servants. Trump belongs in the same dustbin as Palin.
 
Last edited:
McCain and Romney were all credible public servants. Trump belongs in the same dustbin as Palin.

I was thinking this other day. Romney looks damn good as a Republican candidate in retrospect, which is something I never expected myself to be thinking, no less saying out loud.
 
Romney probably wouldn't have been that terrible a president. He'd serve the corporate class, which is basically the status quo but I think he had little interest in invading places and as a Mormon probably even less interest in courting the Christian right. Obviously against Obama he stood no real chance but compared to the 16 or 17 clowns that graced the stage this time he was a statesman.
 
If it all wasn't disturbing enough. The fact that these tweets came between 3 and 5am is actually kind of terrifying when you think about it.
Imagine someone with absolutely no self control. Someone who cannot let the smallest slight go. Someone who has never apologized or admitted doing something wrong in his life. A guy that won't listen to anyone around him no matter what they say, and usually just ends up replacing them. (I've heard rumblings that "the family" isn't happy with his management yet again)
And then imagine him in the Oval office or situation room with some really big shit going down.

So much is laughed off about this baffoon. But the reality is really scary.
 
If anyone is interested in latest polling. Looks like Clinton is getting a bump from the debate.
some are mid and post debate, but National polls ranging from Clinton plus 3 to plus 10.
Nevada - Clinton plus 5. Florida - Clinton plus 2 and plus 4. and looks like gains in NC, CO, and MI.

The interesting one is the Times Picayune poll. Poll taken pre/mid debate had Clinton plus 5 Nationally. Then did one post debate and have her up 10.

Will be interesting to see how the other polls shake out by midweek next week.
 
Just wait for the Wikileaks!!!!! Game Changer!!!! You won't believe what's in the emails!

I can't wait to see what trap Clinton sets for Trump next.

Clinton is a known commodity. I really doubt we're going to hear a giant bombshell in the next 30+ days that we haven't already heard, or no worse than what we've heard.

But with Trump, you know people are digging around and the DNC/Clinton team will keep releasing more and more shit on him as we get closer.

They did so brilliantly with Ms Universe
 
Just wait for the Wikileaks!!!!! Game Changer!!!! You won't believe what's in the emails!

I can't wait to see what trap Clinton sets for Trump next.

Clinton is a known commodity. I really doubt we're going to hear a giant bombshell in the next 30+ days that we haven't already heard, or no worse than what we've heard.

But with Trump, you know people are digging around and the DNC/Clinton team will keep releasing more and more shit on him as we get closer.

They did so brilliantly with Ms Universe

I fully expect some more DNC type stuff to show up in the next few weeks.
But the Foundation and emails have pretty much been exhausted of any new material. Not that they won't be asked about.

I think Clinton's team has done well finding things to throw at Trump at just the right time. Amazing the deluge of new information that is coming out about Trump now that the Machado thing took hold.

Luckily, Trump is the perfect pawn. He just keeps it going and going. It's great.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom