2016 US Presidential Election Thread XIII

[Headache in a Suitcase]

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]

Originally Posted by Hewson

Afrin

Oh man, Afrin.

That shit works, but at what cost?

AT WHAT COST???

[DaveC]

Originally Posted by Hewson

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.

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]

Originally Posted by corianderstem

Oh man, Afrin.

That shit works, but at what cost?

AT WHAT COST???

$10.99 at Walgreens

https://www.walgreens.com/store/c/af...5-c06e7be1628e

[womanfish]

Originally Posted by iron yuppie

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.

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]

Originally Posted by Moonlit_Angel

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]

I've met republicans stuck in biased fantasyland, but it's rather interesting to see it on the democrat side...

[womanfish]

Originally Posted by LuckyNumber7

I've met republicans stuck in biased fantasyland, but it's rather interesting to see it on the democrat side...

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]

Originally Posted by Headache in a Suitcase

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."

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%.

[BEAL]

Originally Posted by womanfish

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]

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.

[bono_212]

If there was ever a jump the shark moment in this election, for me, that was it.

[Diemen]

Plus, all those mean ads Hillary is running about you? Pretty much all they do is quote you.

[Diemen]

Originally Posted by corianderstem

I'm amazed Benghazi didn't come up.

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.

[Headache in a Suitcase]

"No, no sniffles," he told Fox & Friends Tuesday. "You know, the mic was very bad, but maybe it was good enough to hear breathing. But no sniffles. No cold."

This man is living in a fantasy world.

Hey... thanks again, GOP. Really. Good job, good effort.

[LuckyNumber7]

Originally Posted by womanfish

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.

[Caleb8844]

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

[womanfish]

Originally Posted by LuckyNumber7

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.

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]

Originally Posted by Headache in a Suitcase

I believe Cori already posted the proper reply to this.

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]

Originally Posted by corianderstem

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.