2016 US Presidential Election Thread XIII
- Thread starter Axver
- Start date
The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
- Status
Hewson
Blue Crack Supplier
He claims to not drink or do drugs, but in the first 5 minutes I asked if he had snorted a couple of lines before taking the stage.
Maybe he took smelling salts or Afrin, but something was going on.
On a "positive" note, he didn't look quite as orange as usual.
bono_212
Blue Crack Distributor
That's what I was saying to Travis when he said that.
I was just saying, basically, 'he does realize that those airports were built on other people's backs, right?'
We weren't doomed with any of the last few presidents, who everyone screamed would destroy this country, I doubt we'd be screwed now if Hillary won, even if you don't like her.
But Trump? I definitely don't feel right way about Trump. Last night did nothing to reassure me.
martha
Blue Crack Supplier
I know. WTF?
It's very symptomatic of a guy who is surrounded by yes-men in his daily life. My bet is his adult children don't bite the hand that feeds them, and aside from Ivanka who does seem like she is at least with it, the two guys are dingbats and Tiffany has essentially no relationship with Trump anyway. His current wife is probably totally disengaged and sees little of him. So who's left in his daily life? Employees, consultants, blah blah all people who exist solely to pump up his elephantine ego.
I can't tell you how many times I have been in a meeting (I'm a corporate lawyer) where some high level exec, maybe even a CEO of a company walks in having been totally disengaged from whatever transaction is going on and offering some nugget of "wisdom" which leaves everyone in the room utterly speechless at the stupidity of it, but then he leaves and we all get back to work to actually get things done. This is Trump in a nutshell, so why would he study for some dinky debate against a woman who has no stamina and whom he can put into place by talking over her? I think for a lot of people who don't live in this type of corporate environment it may be incomprehensible. To me, it's kind of like business as usual.
iron yuppie
ONE love, blood, life
I was impressed with Hillary's toughness, with her refusal to be rattled by anything coming out of Trump's mouth. She appeared very stately to me, aggressive at times but always composed.
LuckyNumber7
Blue Crack Addict
I agree. As someone who comfortably fits somewhere between the Democratic Party and the libertarian party, I felt unconvinced by Obama's first term. In hindsight, I was pleased with his second term. But, at the time I voted for Johnson.
Mitt Romney was absolutely not someone who represented my views at all. People panicked that he was effectively the worst thing that could happen to us. Someone quoted it as "the most important election in our lifetimes" as every election is always called.
This election sort of makes me realize that the potential for a candidate to be dooming is far less when they're an actual politician. It's not to say that the candidate needs to be a career politician. But time and time again I can't help but think that the absolute worst thing about Donald Trump is not his racist, xenophobic, poor tempered nature. It's the fact that he doesn't have a clue how to do anything he talks about. He doesn't know what he's talking about. His ideas come right out of his ass. Build a wall, he says. Even if he wanted to be xenophobic and destroy relations with Mexico over it, it's not like his plan was well thought out. It was an impulsive idea. Building a wall doesn't change the fact that the vast majority of illegal immigrants either come on a plane, on a boat, in the water, or heck... underground. The disproportionate response he a wall would be to such a "problem" is evidence that the guy only thinks impulsively, and doesn't actually have real thought out ideas.
Hewson
Blue Crack Supplier
You always have to account for the possibility that any President could do something really horrible, so the odds are like 95%-5% Trump will be worse, but that still rates as a "probably" rather than a "definitely".
I think were Trump to win, he'd just sit in The White House and throw parties and film his daily activity for reality TV. Do nothing actually presidential.
Should Hillary start WW3, she'd rate as worse than that. So she gets a "probably".
LuckyNumber7
Blue Crack Addict
Clearly Hewson is also a libteral.
The Republican candidate for President of the United States said in a public debate that taking advantage of the housing crisis was "good business," and that not paying federal income tax makes him "smart."
corianderstem
Blue Crack Distributor
DaveC
Blue Crack Addict
there are lots of people in the finance world who don't consider taking speed to be "doing drugs" cause all it does is give you a shit ton of energy, rather than "get you high". they liken it to drinking a bunch of red bulls at once.
they're full of shit of course, but this is really common in high-tempo offices.
Hewson
Blue Crack Supplier
womanfish
Rock n' Roll Doggie ALL ACCESS
Yep, she really kept it controlled. I was yelling at the screen, you gotta call him out on that!!!! You can't let that go!!!! But in the end, it was best she did. Don't get caught in the follow up rabbit hole that could go sideways on her.
I was pretty shocked that he was in yelling stage by 10 minutes in. All the talk of him coming and being a totally different, controlled and courteous candidate, gave me some false expectations i guess.
He looked visibly tired by the second half and he spun into absolute nonsense (more so than usual) by that time.
Now the challenge for Clinton is to be even better prepared for the next ones. If Trump does even mildly better the next time, and he most likely will, she will need to do better to stay on top. She still needs some better answers on a few things, and to really get out more of her platform. She got a bit out there this time, but Trumps non-stop talking makes it nearly impossible.
womanfish
Rock n' Roll Doggie ALL ACCESS
I think about that, too. This is going to be taught in history classes and teachers will have to figure out how to explain this insanity. It's a truly surreal thing to imagine.
Already I'm seeing people on other sites bitching that Lester Holt was biased towards Clinton because he didn't ask her about the e-mails (actually, he did) or Benghazi or her foundation.
One thing that i think is to Clinton's advantage now, is that the media went SO far overboard covering and constantly asking and covering Benghazi and the foundation and emails, that it feels like, it just isn't worth asking so much any more. After getting the same answer 100 times, there really is little left to say.
They will most likely come up in coming debates, but i see why Holt didn't do it. Lauer starting a 30 minute foreign affairs town hall with 15 minutes of email questions, was about as absurd as it gets, and i don't think he wanted to do the same.
What worries me though, is that despite the amount of prep she does, i have found she inexplicably still doesn't have completely polished and succinct answers for some tough questions. How many times did she get hung up on emails and Goldman Sachs speaking fees in debates with Sanders??? It was baffling to me.
LuckyNumber7
Blue Crack Addict
I've met republicans stuck in biased fantasyland, but it's rather interesting to see it on the democrat side...
womanfish
Rock n' Roll Doggie ALL ACCESS
yes, me admitting that Clinton has work to do on her answers and was left flat-footed multiple times in debates with Sanders on the same issues is really living in fantasyland.
Lauers questions were panned for days after that forum. Clinton has a 2 sentence answer for it now, so tell me, what more will be gained by asking about something that has been asked 400 times?
I also said that benghazi and the foundation will turn up in future debates. But i see why Holt didn't go there. He also didn't ask about Trumps foundation. So enlighten me as to why I'm in fantasyland?
Irvine511
Blue Crack Supplier
it's both amazing and unsurprising to me, regarding Republican nominees, that, 1) i've paid more in federal income tax than Donald Trump these past 10 years, and, 2) i'm taxed at a significantly higher rate than Mitt Romney's 15%.
yes, me admitting that Clinton has work to do on her answers and was left flat-footed multiple times in debates with Sanders on the same issues is really living in fantasyland.
Lauers questions were panned for days after that forum. Clinton has a 2 sentence answer for it now, so tell me, what more will be gained by asking about something that has been asked 400 times?
I also said that benghazi and the foundation will turn up in future debates. But i see why Holt didn't go there. He also didn't ask about Trumps foundation. So enlighten me as to why I'm in fantasyland?
You have to start any conversation about Clinton with how horrible of a human being she is. If you don't acknowledge that, then you're a blind sheep.
I've seen the MEMES from trump supporters on my fb feed that it was biased because.
No emails
No Benghazi
No foundation
Etc
I just don't get what that would have proven. I believe emails did come up. Is asking the 3 billionth question on Benghazi going to reveal something new?
Trump was on coke tho. High energy, lost it all half way thru. And honestly, I don't blame him. He needed everything to help him. He's so in over his head, why not get pumped up about it?
Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference
corianderstem
Blue Crack Distributor
I'm amazed Benghazi didn't come up.
And holy shit at Trump's "Well, I was going to say something really awful about you and your family, but now I'm not because I AM SO GRACIOUS AND LOOK AT ME TAKING THE HIGH ROAD."
Yes, because bringing up Bill's infidelities would have gone over sooooo well for you.
And holy shit at Trump's "Well, I was going to say something really awful about you and your family, but now I'm not because I AM SO GRACIOUS AND LOOK AT ME TAKING THE HIGH ROAD."
Yes, because bringing up Bill's infidelities would have gone over sooooo well for you.
bono_212
Blue Crack Distributor
If there was ever a jump the shark moment in this election, for me, that was it.
Plus, all those mean ads Hillary is running about you? Pretty much all they do is quote you. 
It didn't come up because Trump lacks the most basic sense of self-reflection that would allow him to acknowledge that he would benefit from practice, lacks the most basic amount of intellectual rigor necessary to bone up on at least a few of the important current issues so he could give at least semi-coherent answers to them, and lacks the slightest shred of humility that would keep him on message and not veering off into shameless self-promotion at every turn.
There's probably nothing he can do to alienate his core followers (even admitting that he stiffs the little guy and doesn't pay his taxes doesn't seem to sway them), but yesterday was utterly disastrous for his appeal to the undecideds.
This man is living in a fantasy world.
Hey... thanks again, GOP. Really. Good job, good effort.
LuckyNumber7
Blue Crack Addict
yes, me admitting that Clinton has work to do on her answers and was left flat-footed multiple times in debates with Sanders on the same issues is really living in fantasyland.
Lauers questions were panned for days after that forum. Clinton has a 2 sentence answer for it now, so tell me, what more will be gained by asking about something that has been asked 400 times?
I also said that benghazi and the foundation will turn up in future debates. But i see why Holt didn't go there. He also didn't ask about Trumps foundation. So enlighten me as to why I'm in fantasyland?
You aggressively defend her every move, and play a sad song for her every time she's criticized. You went so far as to meet every stereotype you could by blindly calling people sexist when they disagree with her or criticize her. On the contrary to your post, she is purely infallible in every respect in every single one of your posts. You sound like when Donald Trump cries that the system is rigged. You sound like when sports fans complain about a referee at any given instance where the call is not in their favor. You make it seem like the mainstream media is out to get Clinton. On the contrary, they're out to level the playing field. But in their defense, while doing so, they're also far more critical of Donald Trump. Rightfully so; he has far more to criticize.
You're hands down one of the most biased posters in this thread. All I can say is I'm glad you're on the right side. But you're sort of like bobsagget were he to be a liberal.
Left the debate thinking, if this were 2012 or any election year before it, Clinton won by a rather large margin. In this particular year, I thought she edged out a victory, and I anticipated a 1-3 point bump in the polls.
I learned my lesson about expecting the masses to judge Trump's debating style in the same way I do in the primaries, though.
2016 presidential debate snap polls show Trump beating Hillary Clinton by a landslide | Daily Mail Online
As these are online, and therefore unscientific, polls, take with a grain of salt. But they still say something, I suppose
I learned my lesson about expecting the masses to judge Trump's debating style in the same way I do in the primaries, though.
2016 presidential debate snap polls show Trump beating Hillary Clinton by a landslide | Daily Mail Online
As these are online, and therefore unscientific, polls, take with a grain of salt. But they still say something, I suppose
Last edited:
womanfish
Rock n' Roll Doggie ALL ACCESS
That was almost as funny as Trump's performance last night. Yep, me saying I'm bewildered that she can't come up with solid answers to questions she knows she's going to get and she does it over and over again is clearly me saying she's infallible.
Me saying that Lauer did a terrible job and was probably a factor in why Holt didn't go on a string of email questions, is just simple logic. If you don't think Holt didn't pay close attention to the Lauer criticism then you're kidding yourself. Did that help Hillary last night. Sure.
And believe it or not, sexism is a thing. It happens on quite a regular basis. If you don't think Hillary's composed demeanor last night was not in part because she knows she can't always debate in the same manner as men can and not get a negative reaction, then you're deluded.
have a happy and a healthy
Mrs. Garrison
Rock n' Roll Doggie ALL ACCESS
if there is something you would like to say to me, why not just say it outright instead of hiding behind someone else's post?
Mrs. Garrison
Rock n' Roll Doggie ALL ACCESS
I like you, you seem like a good egg. I will usually apologize when realize I've done or said something out of line. This is not one of those times.
This is an appropriate, albeit low-brow and smart-ass, response to a man telling a woman they should smile, whether they are running for president or not.
Thank you, your a good egg as well (can i say that without being offensive?)
Honestly i don't know what it is you found offensive about his post. Am i missing something? He said nothing directly to the candidate, he was merely observing (imho) that the candidate does not seem to smile very much. I have observed the same - as have others in the media - hence the supposed likability problem with the candidate.
- Status
