Presidential Debates

[phiwum]

Willful ignorance, ROCKS![emoji14]

Yes, well, that's a much better reply than explaining yourself or confirming whether my interpretation was right.

Aside, of course, for the bizarre comma.
Anyway, humor me. What did you mean?

 

[PhantomWolf]

LOL! That's what Carville was yelling when HRC said she would DESTROY the coal industry, at the primary debate!

Except that isn't actually what she said.

She said that the with people becoming more environmentally aware that we (as in society) are going to destroy the coal industry by our moving away from it to clearer products, and so they needed to consider this and look for new ways to employ those in the coal industry.

Once again the Republicans lied by editing the footage down to just:

"we are going to destroy the coal industry"

 

[BobTheCoward]

I want to see Hillary push DT's buttons enough for DT to lose all control of his temper. The nation needs to see that Trump cannot handle the pressure of not being the one with all the power.

What if she pushes and he has the best temperament? Will that affect your opinion?

 

[Ladewig]

What if she pushes and he has the best temperament? Will that affect your opinion?

I'll say yes. I will re-examine my thoughts about the race if Trump can demonstrate that he can discuss things more calmly and rationally than Clinton.

If a guy who cannot let a tweet go unanswered can completely turn himself around and not be incensed by real or imagined slights, I will be exceptionally curious as to how he did that. Plus, it poses an interesting hypothetical: would calm Trump pick up or lose more votes?

 

[thaiboxerken]

What if she pushes and he has the best temperament? Will that affect your opinion?

Not really, since he has demonstrated his awful temperament quite often. The debate will just reach more people.

 

[cullennz]

Without looking, I'm going to say

allowing the vote for blacks, for women, and during the Vietnam war era, lowering the voting age from 21 to 18. The fourth I'd say had something to do with outlawing the poll tax.

I'll keep my embarrassment smiley handy just in case I'm wrong on either of the last two.

I was right.

Guessing you would also have to have an address.

To get registered

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Guessing you would also have to have an address.

To get registered

I have no idea what you are on about, however, in this state homeless people have an option for getting a mail-only ballot. Is there a state you have in mind that requires an address to vote?

 

[cullennz]

I have no idea what you are on about, however, in this state homeless people have an option for getting a mail-only ballot. Is there a state you have in mind that requires an address to vote?

Farout man. Not trying to be critical, it was just a guess.

How do they know the homeless people are who they say they are.

Genuine question

 

[Stacko]

I'll say yes. I will re-examine my thoughts about the race if Trump can demonstrate that he can discuss things more calmly and rationally than Clinton.

If a guy who cannot let a tweet go unanswered can completely turn himself around and not be incensed by real or imagined slights, I will be exceptionally curious as to how he did that. Plus, it poses an interesting hypothetical: would calm Trump pick up or lose more votes?

Even when he had his subdued moments, he's still spewing incoherent contradictory gibberish. I have a feeling the hype is exceeding what the event will actually deliver for the debate.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Farout man. Not trying to be critical, it was just a guess.

How do they know the homeless people are who they say they are.

Genuine question

Don't know but I imagine being homeless does not equate to having no ID or birth certificate.

 

[Minoosh]

I could also see him saying, "I became an American less than a decade ago and had to pass a citizenship test. I am now going to ask you a few questions from that test."

"Iceland is a country in the North Atlantic. Its capital is Reykjavik. Describe any of the four amendments about who can vote."

OK, I made up the quote, but I am totally not joking about him moderating.

 

[Andy_Ross]

Farout man. Not trying to be critical, it was just a guess.

How do they know the homeless people are who they say they are.

Genuine question

Not every homeless person is a Hobo living in a Dumpster.

 

[cullennz]

Not every homeless person is a Hobo living in a Dumpster.

Well then my guess stands.

You can't vote if you live out of a dumpster.

Which makes it 5

 

[Foolmewunz]

Well then my guess stands.

You can't vote if you live out of a dumpster.

Which makes it 5

Could you take you nonsense out back and feed it to the sheep. (No, not that one, she's Big Al's girl. )

There are four "Amendments". Not Ornaments. Not Condiments. Not Trollish Comments.

Please show, by linking to the pertinent Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America, the Amendment specifying that you need an address other than a Dumpster to vote. SG got them right.

The question wasn't "What are the requirements to be eligible to vote?", but "which amendments specifically address voting rights for individuals".

 

[Fast Eddie B]

Once again the Republicans lied by editing the footage down to just:

"we are going to destroy the coal industry"

Easiest to just give the exact quote:

"We're going to put a lot of coal miners and coal companies out of business.”

Parse that as you will, can you at least see how that might give a coal miner a reason not to vote for her?

 

[thaiboxerken]

Easiest to just give the exact quote:

"We're going to put a lot of coal miners and coal companies out of business.”

Parse that as you will, can you at least see how that might give a coal miner a reason not to vote for her?

Because they're stupid enough not to have heard the context and ignore the part where she talks about re-training and not forgetting about the coal workers.

Also, Hillary won't have to put coal companies out of business, it is happening on its own.

 

[Foolmewunz]

Because they're stupid enough not to have heard the context and ignore the part where she talks about re-training and not forgetting about the coal workers.

Also, Hillary won't have to put coal companies out of business, it is happening on its own.

Optics! It was a stupid thing to say.

 

[thaiboxerken]

Optics! It was a stupid thing to say.

Maybe, but this isn't hurting her as much as the idiotic non-scandals.

 

[pgwenthold]

Easiest to just give the exact quote:

"We're going to put a lot of coal miners and coal companies out of business.”

Parse that as you will, can you at least see how that might give a coal miner a reason not to vote for her?

Only those that are predisposed to do so.

The problem with the lack of context of the statement is, who is "we"?

If a coal miner thinks that any president will or should be fighting to preserve coal mining companies, then that person is deluded. Coal mining jobs are going to go away, and hopefully so, regardless of the President.

If coal miners are in denial about this, then they need to come to grips with it. This isn't a Clinton thing, it is a US, and heck, a global society issue.

Unless, of course, they are climate change deniers and think there is an unlimited supply of coal. And with the former, as I said, they aren't voting for Clinton anyway.

 

[PhantomWolf]

Easiest to just give the exact quote:

"We're going to put a lot of coal miners and coal companies out of business.”

Parse that as you will, can you at least see how that might give a coal miner a reason not to vote for her?

That's only part of the quote though, that's the issue. The entire thing is...

Look, we have serious economic problems in many parts of our country. And Roland is absolutely right. Instead of dividing people the way Donald Trump does, let's reunite around policies that will bring jobs and opportunities to all these underserved poor communities.

So for example, I'm the only candidate which has a policy about how to bring economic opportunity using clean renewable energy as the key into coal country. Because we're going to put a lot of coal miners and coal companies out of business, right?

And we're going to make it clear that we don't want to forget those people. Those people labored in those mines for generations, losing their health, often losing their lives to turn on our lights and power our factories.

Now we've got to move away from coal and all the other fossil fuels, but I don't want to move away from the people who did the best they could to produce the energy that we relied on.

So whether it's coal country or Indian country or poor urban areas, there is a lot of poverty in America. We have gone backwards. We were moving in the right direction. In the '90s, more people were lifted out of poverty than any time in recent history.

Because of the terrible economic policies of the Bush administration, President Obama was left with the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression, and people fell back into poverty because they lost jobs, they lost homes, they lost opportunities, and hope.

So I am passionate about this, which is why I have put forward specific plans about how we incentivize more jobs, more investment in poor communities, and put people to work.

It's quite clear that the 'we' in context is society as a whole as it moves towards cleaner energy. And she's right. As we move to renewables, we are going to put a lot of coal miners out of work and destroy a lot of companies. The major Government owned Coal company here in NZ, Solid Energy went belly up last year, and that had nothing to do with Clinton or the Democrats, it had to do with International prices as the demand for coal plummets. US mining companies are under the same pressures.

At worst you can say she wasn't clear enough in the answer, but the Republicans took that one sentence out of the entire answer and wrote it up as if she personally planned to destroy the coal industry. That was totally untrue.