First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  Next  Last
Post Reply Results of the 1st 2016 Debate
14536 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Online
Posted 9/27/16 , edited 9/27/16

Ocale wrote:


Savagely69 wrote:

Hillary a lier but I don't get why trump supporters are saying he won, from the looks of it he was struggling last night (not a hillary supporter im actually a trump supporter)


Look at the OP. He struggled because they barraged him with way more questions while Hilary got extra time to think and stay composed.


If you mean to imply the debate was bias said questions were given to Trump due to his conflicting statements such as his claim he was against war where it's documented he was for the war. I'd like to think that's something you as a voter would want to be aware of.
10607 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Rabbit Horse
Offline
Posted 9/27/16
apparently there was some funny thing going on in regard to the wifi. journalists were blocked from using their own hotspot, and those who didn't comply were asked to leave the debate. journalists were forced to turn off their personal hotspot and pay a $200 fine to use the local wifi. i don't know about you, but i find this seriously messed up. they claim that it would help with interference, but considering the amount they are charging for the wifi usage, the claim seems pretty dubious indeed.

source: http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2016/09/fcc-commissioner-calls-for-investigation-into-debate-wi-fi-debacle/
28224 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 9/27/16 , edited 9/27/16

BlueOni wrote:
Which frankly is good for Trump, because all he really needed to do was hold Clinton off and not say anything stupid.


He failed miserably in that regard. I'm also not sure what debate you watched.

The real turning point was Hillary hitting him on his wealth ( or lack there of ). He's notoriously thin skinned, especially concerning his image as amazingly Rich(tm), and also kind of a sexist dick. Having a woman imply he isn't filthy rich on national tv was too much. She was starting to get under his skin before that, but that was really the point where she got to him and he started to really unhinge.

He treated this debate like one of his rallies. He thought he could walk in without any prep whatsoever, throw out some zinger applause lines, pat himself on the back and walk out. But that only works when he's in front of a pro-Trump crowd that can guide his topics. During his rallies he feeds off the audience response both in terms of energy and in terms of what to talk about.

When you put him in front of a bipartisan crowd that stays quiet he goes rudderless. Like a sitcom without a laugh track. He says what he thinks the crowd wants to hear but if the crowd doesn't tell him what it wants to hear he has quite a bit more trouble trying to figure out what's good or bad for him to say.

As evidenced by things like agreeing he didn't pay income tax and saying that makes him smart. Or congratulating himself for dragging out birthirism for years like he did America a favour. Or taking yet another inexplicable pot shot at Rosie O'Donnell in the middle of a presidential debate.

Basically, this is the first night where he suddenly realized running for president isn't a reality tv show and he can't just show up and perform anymore to adoring crowds. We'll see if this makes him smarten up and start taking this seriously for the next debate or if he'll double down on it.

I genuinely worry he will double down on it. In part thanks to 4Chan's antics on online polls and such.




16747 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Hoosierville
Offline
Posted 9/27/16

rawratl wrote:



What the hell do players and casual sex have to do with anything? You lost me. Also, I'm very liberal and not on a single social media site.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/jun/22/donald-trump/trump-still-wrong-his-claim-opposed-iraq-war-ahead/

On the Howard stern interview: In the interview, which took place on Sept. 11, 2002, Stern asked Trump directly if he was for invading Iraq.
“Yeah, I guess so,” Trump responded. “I wish the first time it was done correctly.”


Just my experience from college. I've seen so many things from those crazy leftist feminists and the cucks that chase after them only to get ruined or use them.

Yeah I guess so, that sounds like such a strong endorsement. I guess he was so super enthusiastic and serious about it. I guess he thought long and hard for all of 3 seconds for that endorsement while on a radio show while he wasn't trying to be president.

It sounds more like he didn't care about the Iraq or think about it in his daily life, watch this old clip in 2003 when he just wanted the president to focus on the big problem that was the economy: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/09/27/2003-clip-backs-up-trump-on-iraq-war-opposition.html
16747 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Hoosierville
Offline
Posted 9/27/16

SirWilburn wrote:


Ocale wrote:


Savagely69 wrote:

Hillary a lier but I don't get why trump supporters are saying he won, from the looks of it he was struggling last night (not a hillary supporter im actually a trump supporter)


Look at the OP. He struggled because they barraged him with way more questions while Hilary got extra time to think and stay composed.


If you mean to imply the debate was bias said questions were given to Trump due to his conflicting statements such as his claim he was against war where it's documented he was for the war. I'd like to think that's something you as a voter would want to be aware of.


http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/09/27/2003-clip-backs-up-trump-on-iraq-war-opposition.html
qwueri 
16444 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
30 / M
Offline
Posted 9/27/16 , edited 9/27/16


The closest he comes to opposition in that clip is 'I wish Bush would wait on the coalition'.
35033 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
F
Offline
Posted 9/27/16

runec wrote:

He failed miserably in that regard. I'm also not sure what debate you watched.

The real turning point was Hillary hitting him on his wealth ( or lack there of ). He's notoriously thin skinned, especially concerning his image as amazingly Rich(tm), and also kind of a sexist dick. Having a woman imply he isn't filthy rich on national tv was too much. She was starting to get under his skin before that, but that was really the point where she got to him and he started to really unhinge.

He treated this debate like one of his rallies. He thought he could walk in without any prep whatsoever, throw out some zinger applause lines, pat himself on the back and walk out. But that only works when he's in front of a pro-Trump crowd that can guide his topics. During his rallies he feeds off the audience response both in terms of energy and in terms of what to talk about.

When you put him in front of a bipartisan crowd that stays quiet he goes rudderless. Like a sitcom without a laugh track. He says what he thinks the crowd wants to hear but if the crowd doesn't tell him what it wants to hear he has quite a bit more trouble trying to figure out what's good or bad for him to say.

As evidenced by things like agreeing he didn't pay income tax and saying that makes him smart. Or congratulating himself for dragging out birthirism for years like he did America a favour. Or taking yet another inexplicable pot shot at Rosie O'Donnell in the middle of a presidential debate.

Basically, this is the first night where he suddenly realized running for president isn't a reality tv show and he can't just show up and perform anymore to adoring crowds. We'll see if this makes him smarten up and start taking this seriously for the next debate or if he'll double down on it.

I genuinely worry he will double down on it. In part thanks to 4Chan's antics on online polls and such.


I provided support for the things I said by referring to specific points and moments from the debate. We simply have different assessments of the overall outcome. I think it was closer to a stalemate overall, you think it was a clear victory for Clinton. This is a thing that happens.

Anyway, why would you want Trump to smarten up if you want him to lose and are convinced that his debate strategy was wholly ineffectual? It doesn't make sense for you, someone who is rooting against him, to want his debate strategy to be anything other than poorly-planned, for his performance to be anything other than a "sitcom without a laugh track." If you believe that Clinton utterly eviscerated Trump by drawing out his dark impulses and taking advantage of his unpreparedness then why would you want those conditions to change?
14536 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Online
Posted 9/27/16 , edited 9/27/16

Rujikin wrote:


SirWilburn wrote:


Ocale wrote:


Savagely69 wrote:

Hillary a lier but I don't get why trump supporters are saying he won, from the looks of it he was struggling last night (not a hillary supporter im actually a trump supporter)


Look at the OP. He struggled because they barraged him with way more questions while Hilary got extra time to think and stay composed.


If you mean to imply the debate was bias said questions were given to Trump due to his conflicting statements such as his claim he was against war where it's documented he was for the war. I'd like to think that's something you as a voter would want to be aware of.


http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/09/27/2003-clip-backs-up-trump-on-iraq-war-opposition.html


Even if you ignore the Howard Stern interview, "do it or don't do it" is not taking a stance against the war, at best he can claim he was disinterested at that time. In any case neither response paints the man in a positive light.
5318 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
M
Online
Posted 9/27/16

SirWilburn wrote:


Ocale wrote:


Savagely69 wrote:

Hillary a lier but I don't get why trump supporters are saying he won, from the looks of it he was struggling last night (not a hillary supporter im actually a trump supporter)


Look at the OP. He struggled because they barraged him with way more questions while Hilary got extra time to think and stay composed.


If you mean to imply the debate was bias said questions were given to Trump due to his conflicting statements such as his claim he was against war where it's documented he was for the war. I'd like to think that's something you as a voter would want to be aware of.


This was undoubtedly a biased debate, those questions weren't given because he flip flopped on the war, if that was the case Hillary would have been grilled on the same thing as she initially supported the war. Main talking points against Hillary were left out and wholly unnecessary talking points such as birtherism were lingered on entirely too long for Trump in a deliberate bias. This too Hillary is entirely implicated in and yet Trump was undoubtedly the one being attacked on both subjects. Meanwhile talk over certain felonious emails was pretty much non existent (you would think it would come up more seeing how both candidates spoke so intensely about cyber security) biased debate is biased, we all expected it no need to act shocked. Hillary Clinton undoubtedly has established mainstream media backing her.
5318 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
M
Online
Posted 9/27/16

bensonc120 wrote:

The interesting part on the polls is that Trump has a distinct advantage in getting support from voters without a college education while Hilary polls better with college or higher educated voters.


Colleges are known for their extreme liberal leanings, it is not so strange to think after spending 4 years time in a more liberal environment that their opinions would be altered by their surroundings. The fact that an industry with a vested interest in an agenda effectively sways opinion really shouldn't be a shock.
14536 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Online
Posted 9/28/16 , edited 9/28/16

Punk_Mela wrote:


SirWilburn wrote:


Ocale wrote:


Savagely69 wrote:

Hillary a lier but I don't get why trump supporters are saying he won, from the looks of it he was struggling last night (not a hillary supporter im actually a trump supporter)


Look at the OP. He struggled because they barraged him with way more questions while Hilary got extra time to think and stay composed.


If you mean to imply the debate was bias said questions were given to Trump due to his conflicting statements such as his claim he was against war where it's documented he was for the war. I'd like to think that's something you as a voter would want to be aware of.


This was undoubtedly a biased debate, those questions weren't given because he flip flopped on the war, if that was the case Hillary would have been grilled on the same thing as she initially supported the war. Main talking points against Hillary were left out and wholly unnecessary talking points such as birtherism were lingered on entirely too long for Trump in a deliberate bias. This too Hillary is entirely implicated in and yet Trump was undoubtedly the one being attacked on both subjects. Meanwhile talk over certain felonious emails was pretty much non existent (you would think it would come up more seeing how both candidates spoke so intensely about cyber security) biased debate is biased, we all expected it no need to act shocked. Hillary Clinton undoubtedly has established mainstream media backing her.


There's nothing to grill Clinton on about the Iraq war, she admitted to supporting the war and called it a mistake, there's nothing more to go into. She was also asked about the emails and again said it was a mistake to delete them, again there's nothing more you can go into after that. Anything else said about the emails that doesn't come from Hillary or her campaign teams mouth can only be considered gossip. Sorry, but whatever evidence of the crime she's thought to have committed in those emails is gone, so I guess you can say she got away with it. I guess it just goes to show that sometimes the truth really does set you free.
28 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M / NY
Offline
Posted 9/28/16

bensonc120 wrote:


Rujikin wrote:


bensonc120 wrote:

The interesting part on the polls is that Trump has a distinct advantage in getting support from voters without a college education while Hilary polls better with college or higher educated voters.


Funny cause everyone I know that has gone to college is voting Trump, or not voting, while many of those without are voting Hillary.



http://www.breitbart.com/2016-presidential-race/2016/09/26/poll-trump-leads-clinton-76-percent-to-17-percent-among-white-men-without-college-degrees/

http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2016-08-12/education-level-sharply-divides-clinton-trump-race


http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/race-gender-education-keys-2016-election-poll/story?id=41404170

http://www.mediaite.com/online/poll-trump-leads-clinton-among-non-college-educated-white-men-by-a-whopping-59-points/


Trump has very strong support among the uneducated people. Every poll shows this.


Haha try getting your information from sites a little less one sided.
28224 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 9/28/16

BlueOni wrote:
I provided support for the things I said by referring to specific points and moments from the debate. We simply have different assessments of the overall outcome. I think it was closer to a stalemate overall, you think it was a clear victory for Clinton. This is a thing that happens.


I think only one person up there looked like they could actually be president. Regardless of whether or not I personally like her. I've watched a lot of presidential debates and I have never seen the audience literally laugh at one of the nominees. The entire affair was as sad as it was surreal.



BlueOni wrote:
Anyway, why would you want Trump to smarten up if you want him to lose and are convinced that his debate strategy was wholly ineffectual? It doesn't make sense for you, someone who is rooting against him, to want his debate strategy to be anything other than poorly-planned, for his performance to be anything other than a "sitcom without a laugh track." If you believe that Clinton utterly eviscerated Trump by drawing out his dark impulses and taking advantage of his unpreparedness then why would you want those conditions to change?


You're putting a few words in my mouth there. As for why I am worried he will double down: It's because he's already dragged the state of US politics down so far as is. The longer this goes on the more it harms not just US politics in general but America's image around the world ( which is already taking a beating this election ). I mean Christ almighty. This is basically the job interview for arguably the most important position on the planet and we have some fuck trumpet up there yelling at Rosie O'Donnell, advocating war crimes and wanting to turn the country's military into mercenaries that only work for protection money.

Trump is, to the rest of the world, every negative American stereotype rolled into a single miserable human being. The fact the GOP got from Romney, a guy I may not have agreed with but certainly thought could actually do the job, to Donald Trump, a man who is quite literally a parody of America, in a mere 4 years completely astonishes me.



31067 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
M / Los Angeles, CA
Offline
Posted 9/28/16

ruus wrote:


bensonc120 wrote:


Rujikin wrote:


bensonc120 wrote:

The interesting part on the polls is that Trump has a distinct advantage in getting support from voters without a college education while Hilary polls better with college or higher educated voters.


Funny cause everyone I know that has gone to college is voting Trump, or not voting, while many of those without are voting Hillary.



http://www.breitbart.com/2016-presidential-race/2016/09/26/poll-trump-leads-clinton-76-percent-to-17-percent-among-white-men-without-college-degrees/

http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2016-08-12/education-level-sharply-divides-clinton-trump-race


http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/race-gender-education-keys-2016-election-poll/story?id=41404170

http://www.mediaite.com/online/poll-trump-leads-clinton-among-non-college-educated-white-men-by-a-whopping-59-points/


Trump has very strong support among the uneducated people. Every poll shows this.


Haha try getting your information from sites a little less one sided.


Both right wing and left wing sites were listed.
51241 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
20 / M
Offline
Posted 9/28/16
It's been briefly mentioned by a few other people in this thread, but I'm going to go into detail about everything wrong with that image in the OP about the alleged barrage of questions thrown at Trump just in case people weren't convinced.



1) There are two reasons why it looks like Trump got asked a lot more questions Hillary and why some appear to be critical of him. The first reason is that the creator of the image falsely separates some of the questions that had to be asked multiple times due to Trump not answering or saying things that needed clarification. For example, Trump wasted a lot of time avoiding what he'd do to bring jobs back, which is what one of the early questions was asking for. Then there was the part about his taxes. It's not right to assume that it was unfair that Trump was asked more questions because he didn't give appropriate answers the first few times. Trump was the one who kept dragging it out. It doesn't make sense to expect a debate moderator to ask a question, not have it answered, and move on. The second reason is that some of the questions that the creator claimed were exclusively Trump's isn't correct. A lot of those questions went to both of them. Additionally, that's also why Lester Holt didn't give much detail when asking Hillary. Because he already asked the question for both of them. It's just that Hillary was the second one to answer in most of those cases.

When you account for all these mistakes, the real total of Trump/Hillary/Both questions is 7 for Trump, 2 for Hillary, and 9 for both. Not 15 for Trump. While it's true that Trump still had more questions than Hillary, the number was exaggerated. Especially since the amount of individual questions they received combined is the same as the amount of questions that was directed at both of them.

2) The green commentary shows a clear bias that severely misrepresents what the questions were about and also falsely claims that some of the accusations against Trump were lies or traps. The question about race was not asked to benefit liberals. It was a simple question that both republicans and democrats have their talking points for. Next, the creator lied about the stop-and-frisk question, trying to convince the readers that Trump was asked a question based on lies and that Holt was pushing an agenda with that question. Then they implied the question about Trump's support for Iraq War wasn't valid criticism just because he Trump repeatedly denied it, even though he has gone on record supporting it.

3) Again with the green. This time let's look at what the creator kept saying were hard questions for Trump and easy questions for Hillary. When Trump was asked if the public seeing his tax returns is more important than his personal desire to hide it, the creator called it a "loaded statement," even though it should be an easy question for any candidate that wants to be transparent (that also goes for the fact that Trump is withholding his tax returns in the first place, but that's another story). Then there's the question of why Trump took so long to admit Obama was born in America. It's not difficult at all to answer this question either, unless the creator believes Trump has a pea-sized brain. Pretty much all of the "softball" questions for Hillary were just part of the original questions asked to both of them.

I will admit some of the questions targeted at Trump shouldn't have been asked at all. His tax returns, the birther issue, his comments about Hillary's appearance. None of these had anything to do with policy. However, these weren't traps designed to throw him off. These are all trivial things that any normal person could easily answer. If Holt wanted to spend the night attacking Trump, there are many more topics he could've asked about that would've left Trump with no excuses. Could Holt have asked Hillary tougher questions? Definitely. Did he ask slightly more questions to Trump? Yes. Did he give Trump difficult questions with bias that favors a liberal narrative? Not at all.

4) Back to the Iraq question, as others have already explained, the question wasn't about why it was bad for Trump to support the war and not bad for Hillary to do the same. The question was about Trump's judgement. Everybody knows Hillary voted for the war and she doesn't deny it. The whole purpose of this question being asked was because Trump and Hillary were both in favor of it back then. Holt wanted to know why Trump's judgement would be any different since he was on the same side as Hillary on this issue. The only problem here is that Trump keeps pretending that the Trump who spoke in 2002 was some kind of alien who just looks like him.

5) The creator for some odd reason thought it was unfair that Hillary wasn't asked about the Clinton Foundation's foreign donors in response to a different topic (Trump's tax returns).


Trump started out as his usual self. As the night went on, he kept digging his own grave and came out of that building looking worse than when he came in. All Hillary had to do was just stand there and laugh at Trump making a fool of himself. Not that Hillary did a good job at debating, she was pretty bad herself and occasionally had some good lines. It's just that Trump did worse. Hillary could stand there choking and still look more presidential than the guy next to her throwing a temper tantrum like he's 5 years old. This whole transcript with commentary looks like nothing more than somebody yelling "fire" where there is no fire, just because they're upset that Trump couldn't stop shooting himself in the foot and wanted someone to point fingers at. Although the more I look at it, I wouldn't be surprised if this was all sarcasm to mock Trump's supporters and they all took the bait believing this was legit. Either way, I just spent a lot of time on something that shouldn't need much of an explanation just because I don't want to see people who are easily deceived by it. If you guys still want to believe the delusion that those were valid concerns about the debate, then nothing can convince you.

In regards to online polls, this is nothing new. Trump's supporters always swarm online polls right after every debate. All it takes is posting the link on some place like reddit and every person there will fanatically rush to the poll. Also, anyone can vote in those so there's no way of knowing how many of those people are even U.S. citizens eligible to vote. I found an online poll a while ago for New York that had a 3-way race (Trump, Hillary, and Gary Johnson). The results at the time showed Trump winning NY with over 70%. The results were obviously skewed. I have yet to see a single online poll that doesn't overestimate Trump's support.
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.