US Presidential Election XII

[Vlad n U 2]

Originally Posted by PhilsFan

This forum is a dreadful place for those who want to criticize Clinton because the ones doing the criticizing are so batshit.

Yes, accurate. I don't see much worth in regards to discussion re: Clinton on this board.

[Hewson]

Originally Posted by the iron horse

I watched the forum last night.

Clinton was slower and longer with her replies than Trump.
Because of this Trump received more questions from the audience.


Also going around today is the accusation that Clinton was wearing an ear piece.

https://www.zerocensorship.com/uncen...l-forum-320171

Hillary tended to not answer any of the questions from the audience directly instead choosing to filibuster. At least Trump answered a few of the questions directly and succinctly, especially the one regards to an undocumented alien and military service.

Both came across poorly overall, but she came across worse (though Lauer may have come across poorest of all).

[womanfish]

Originally Posted by Hewson

Hillary tended to not answer any of the questions from the audience directly instead choosing to filibuster. At least Trump answered a few of the questions directly and succinctly, especially the one regards to an undocumented alien and military service.

Both came across poorly overall, but she came across worse (though Lauer may have come across poorest of all).

I love how answering questions with some substance and length = filibustering.

The question on undocumented service members highlighted Trumps absolute ignorance on the subject. This is a non-controversial, long-held process that allows non-documented people with a green card to be on a fast track to citizenship once honorably discharged. There have been 130,000 of these people over the last 15 years. The best i could tell from Trump is that he had no idea this existed already, and that he thought it was almost a non-existent phenomenon, that he would deal with it in a "special way" - leaving open the option that he wouldn't allow them to serve.

[gump]

It's impossible not to see the gender dimensions of the interviews yesterday. A woman not smiling or being "irritated" is somehow worse than a buffon who always looks irritated and is spilling out BS and factuallty proven lies in public without interruption from the interviewer.

First (and second, and third) question for Hillary: emails. First question for Trump: "why do you want to be President". You're not recruiting an intern, Lauer.

Here's the best line you'll read about the debate;

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/09/ar...rump.html?_r=0

But where Mr. Lauer treated Mrs. Clinton like someone running for president, he treated Mr. Trump like someone running to figure out how to be president, eventually.

He actually said "nobody would expect you" to have spent time reading/learning about foreign policy. What the fuck.

That whole interview was a travesty. And that folks somehow think Trump came out looking better speaks as much about Lauer as it does about them.

[Hewson]

Originally Posted by womanfish

I love how answering questions with some substance and length = filibustering.

.

If she had actually addressed the actual question posed, I wouldn't have used the term, but she generally never provided an actual answer to folks' questions.

[gump]

Originally Posted by Hewson

If she had actually addressed the actual question posed, I wouldn't have used the term, but she generally never provided an actual answer to folks' questions.

As opposed to "I have a secret plan to fight ISIS"?

[Headache in a Suitcase]

Originally Posted by the iron horse

I watched the forum last night.

Clinton was slower and longer with her replies than Trump.
Because of this Trump received more questions from the audience.


Also going around today is the accusation that Clinton was wearing an ear piece.

https://www.zerocensorship.com/uncen...l-forum-320171

That's just a special medical implant in case she had another stroke. Duh.

[womanfish]

Originally Posted by Hewson

If she had actually addressed the actual question posed, I wouldn't have used the term, but she generally never provided an actual answer to folks' questions.

I'm not sure how you're getting this.

I'm reading the transcript and instead of posting all the text here, I'll summarize.

First question on emails
Answered directly with detail (for the hundredth time)

Next question from audience - Shocker - emails/classified material again
Answered directly again, with even more detail.

Next - Iraq vote
Answered fully, honestly taking full responsibility that she made a mistake in giving Bush authority

Next - Iran Deal
Very full answer, cut off several times by Lauer, but she pressed to try and give more context and detail. (These are not 30 second answer questions, at least when answered by someone that knows actual facts about them)

Next - The VA
while she provided detail of knowing some of the in depth problems, I admit, she didn't give solutions, other than she will work to fix it.

Next - Vet Suicide
Fully answered, as she had just rolled out a full plan the week before on Veteran's mental health programs.

Next - ISIS/engaging in wars
Lauer tells her she has to rush to answer this. She answers about not getting pulled into a ground war again, using different tactics with the fighters on the ground there, and focusing on taking out leadership with increased intelligence. etc...

Next - terrorist attacks
Answers as fully as possible in 1 minute allotted
Increased online presence, increased European action to help, keeping those on terrorist list from buying guns, etc..


I think she gave as full of answers as she could given the ludicrous time frame and it was miles ahead of Trumps answers which maybe all but one, were utter nonsense.

[BEAL]

Did she admit how unlikable she is? Cause it's important.....

[Irvine511]

“I was taking a law school admissions test in a big classroom at Harvard. My friend and I were some of the only women in the room. I was feeling nervous. I was a senior in college. I wasn’t sure how well I’d do. And while we’re waiting for the exam to start, a group of men began to yell things like: ‘You don’t need to be here.’ And ‘There’s plenty else you can do.’ It turned into a real ‘pile on.’ One of them even said: ‘If you take my spot, I’ll get drafted, and I’ll go to Vietnam, and I’ll die.’ And they weren’t kidding around. It was intense. It got very personal. But I couldn’t respond. I couldn’t afford to get distracted because I didn’t want to mess up the test. So I just kept looking down, hoping that the proctor would walk in the room. I know that I can be perceived as aloof or cold or unemotional. But I had to learn as a young woman to control my emotions. And that’s a hard path to walk. Because you need to protect yourself, you need to keep steady, but at the same time you don’t want to seem ‘walled off.’ And sometimes I think I come across more in the ‘walled off’ arena. And if I create that perception, then I take responsibility. I don’t view myself as cold or unemotional. And neither do my friends. And neither does my family. But if that sometimes is the perception I create, then I can’t blame people for thinking that.”

Humans of New York

[anitram]

People also forget that this wasn't so long ago...Yale became coed in 1969 (!!) and Hillary started law school the next year from what I remember. We often thing of women's lack of access as something that happened 100 years ago, but this isn't even a generation removed.

[BEAL]

Originally Posted by Irvine511

Humans of New York

Sounds like because of her taking a job, more young men went to die in the war.....

I don't blame her at all for having walls up. I can't imagine how jaded and untrustworthy of the world I would be in her shoes


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

[LuckyNumber7]

Originally Posted by Irvine511

I'm watching a Gary Johnson interview.

1. He says he draws more votes from Hillary
2. He didn't know what Aleppo was

Nope! This is why we can't have third parties.

He says that because there's tons of republicans who refuse to vote for him because they see it as a vote for Clinton. I'm sure his camp has done the research and said we need to dispel the idea that libertarians take only from republicans, in order to gather more republicans.

On the Aleppo question, I don't know whether he truly didn't know what it was, or if he was caught off by the odd way the guy said "a leppo." I give him the benefit, because I didn't just run a two question check on his intelligence and I know he's not an idiot.

I fail to see that "this" is "why we can't have third parties." You make it seem like we can't be part of the rest of the western world because of one fumble. If that's the case, we all know we have an arsenal of Trump fumbles. Why should we even have two parties? Might as well just have a one party system where we re-elect the same dear leader.

[gump]

And make no mistake, even Obama benefitted from the gender bias when he was debating Hilary. Remember the "you're likeable enough" comment.

[LuckyNumber7]

Originally Posted by PhilsFan

This forum is a dreadful place for those who want to criticize Clinton because the ones doing the criticizing are so batshit.

And when not-batshit-crazy criticisms get posted, they get driven into the ground by the usual critics.

Or, you get sorted into a bucket, Bernie bro.

[Oregoropa]

Gary Johnson got Aleppo confused with...



Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

[Bluer White]

Originally Posted by Hewson

Hillary tended to not answer any of the questions from the audience directly instead choosing to filibuster. At least Trump answered a few of the questions directly and succinctly, especially the one regards to an undocumented alien and military service.

Both came across poorly overall, but she came across worse (though Lauer may have come across poorest of all).

[deep]

http://www.fox7austin.com/news/local...03317457-story

[VintagePunk]

Originally Posted by Irvine511

Humans of New York

I've been looking for a reason to post this for ages. A long read, but a very good one.

Understanding Hillary: The Clinton America sees isn’t the Clinton colleagues know. Why are they so different?

It begins:

This is not a profile of Hillary Clinton. It is not a review of her career or an assessment of her campaign. You won’t find any shocking revelations on her emails, on Benghazi, on Whitewater, or even on her health care plan.

This is an effort to answer a question I’ve been struggling with since at least 2008: Why is the Hillary Clinton described to me by her staff, her colleagues, and even her foes so different from the one I see on the campaign trail?

I’ve come to call it “the Gap.” There is the Hillary Clinton I watch on the nightly news and that I read described in the press. She is careful, calculated, cautious. Her speeches can sound like executive summaries from a committee report, the product of too many authors, too many voices, and too much fear of offense.

The Iraq War mars her record, and the private email server and the Goldman Sachs paydays frustrate even her admirers. Polls show most Americans doubt her basic honesty. Pundits write columns with headlines like “Why Is Clinton Disliked?”

And then there is the Hillary Clinton described to me by people who have worked with her, people I admire, people who understand Washington in ways I never will. Their Hillary Clinton is spoken of in superlatives: brilliant, funny, thoughtful, effective. She inspires a rare loyalty in ex-staff, and an unusual protectiveness even among former foes.

...

Eta - just realized I may have originally seen this article posted here, months ago. It's worth another post, in case it was missed the first time.

[Irvine511]

Originally Posted by LuckyNumber7

He says that because there's tons of republicans who refuse to vote for him because they see it as a vote for Clinton. I'm sure his camp has done the research and said we need to dispel the idea that libertarians take only from republicans, in order to gather more republicans.

On the Aleppo question, I don't know whether he truly didn't know what it was, or if he was caught off by the odd way the guy said "a leppo." I give him the benefit, because I didn't just run a two question check on his intelligence and I know he's not an idiot.

I fail to see that "this" is "why we can't have third parties." You make it seem like we can't be part of the rest of the western world because of one fumble. If that's the case, we all know we have an arsenal of Trump fumbles. Why should we even have two parties? Might as well just have a one party system where we re-elect the same dear leader.

well, my comment was meant to be slightly humorous, but if you like, one could argue that the two party system gives a necessary coherence and stability to a massive, multicultural population spread out over an entire continent with vast geographic and cultural differences. not to mention that 150 years ago the country was consumed by a near catastrophic civil war. these two parties also seem to be able to assimilate the issues and concerns presented by smaller parties (i.e., the Tea Party being absorbed by the GOP, though now at apparent great cost), so real changes in platform and positions can and do happen.

there's also the issue that there hasn't ever been a remotely credible third party candidate (Perot is the gold standard here), nor do third parties bother to do much beyond run for president. it seems that many those attracted to third parties -- aside from those who might be at present unhappy with their party's nominee, but have a long history of voting for the two parties -- like to complain about not having a choice but then do little to actually create a viable alternative choice, and then turn around and not vote and blame the system. it's difficult to run for state and local offices, but that's the kind of groundwork required to create a political party.

Johnson may not be an idiot, and he may have had a brain malfunction (all that THC!) but running for the presidency does require one to have a basic minimum knowledge of current events. given that Aleppo has been gassed with chlorine and this was headlines yesterday, one would think that it would have rung a bell.

Reports of a Chlorine-Gas Attack in Aleppo - The Atlantic

i watched this as it happened, and it was in no way a gotcha question. and it was far more basic than, say, someone quizzing GWB about the name of the prime minister of Pakistan (something he also should have known, btw).

Johnson seems to encapsulate the problem with third parties -- it's difficult to take them seriously, because they don't seem to be serious about actual policy.