• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Presidential Debates

Foolmewunz said:
I doubt either of them is writing the one-liners this time around. Carville's humor is too pointed and down home. Ann Richards would be delighted to deliver Carville's material, not Hillary Clinton. And Ailes hasn't come up with a good line in years. His reputation as Mr. Mean is greatly surpassed by Trump's grand allies in Coulter, Bannon, Stone, et al.

I'd give the edge to Trump. He's expected to be abrasive and he loses no points with his devoted following if he crosses the line. Hillary's got the woman card against her and becomes "shrill bitch" if she's too pointed, so her writers have to come up with something brilliant if she's going to take the comedy sweepstakes. Something like the (and I paraphrase) "... and spoke for seventy-odd minutes,.... and I do mean ODD....", but that's not a line that translates well into "of the moment" and it would sound forced if it doesn't fit the question.

I think that's the problem Hillary faces. Even if she has Obama's writers back there, they have to not just come up with a line or two, they have to come up with the right moment to use it. If it seems like she's changing the topic just to get in her zinger, she's just not that good an actress to pull that off. It'll look forced and awkward. Trump? He's expected to bluster and change the subject. No one will notice.
Click to expand...
My thoughts exactly, and it was demonstrated last night with Clinton's "Trumped up trickle down" line. Obviously scripted, obviously pre-planned, obviously used as a hoped-for zinger, and completely a failure. It failed not because of the line but because that sort of thing does no suit Clinton's style.
 
Stacko said:
Huh!? The emails and Libya did come up. He just failed to capitalize on them because he has the attention span of a toddler. How out of it was he last night?
Click to expand...

Also, this shows a failure of Trump to realize the inside game of politics. He was asked these questions because before the debate he has broadly left these questions unanswered, gave conflicting answers, or answers that conflict with the record. Clinton has canned answers ready and given them before in the classic politician version of same facts, different opinions. Asking her about them only serves the purpose, "remember this thing?" That isn't the nature of debate questions.
 
The Big Dog said:
Actually you and Holt don't understand the difference between stop and frisk being unconstitutional and the NYPD's SELECTIVE PRACTICE of stop and frisk being unconstitutional.

I do, the lawyer writing that article did, and Trump did.

Holt should have kept his big lying yapper shut.
Click to expand...

Given that they were specifically talking about the NYPD's unconstitutional practice of stopping and frisking minorities, he was not lying.

Notice the headline said, "Debate Fact Check: Trump Wrong, Stop and Frisk was Ruled Unconstitutional"

Nobody believes that Holt was saying it is unconstitutional for the police to stop and frisk if they have reasonable suspicion.

Anyway, keep crying about Lester Holt. It makes me smile.
 
Last edited:
BobTheCoward said:
I don't care what interests you have in tax returns. My sole fight is against the nebulous concept of fair share.
Click to expand...


•This post is probably not worth reading. I think I was doing the computer equivalent of talking to hear my own voice (typing to read my own words?)



Yes. It is nebulous. But one cannot say that it is so nebulous than we cannot somewhat agree on a number. A fair share of taxes must be definable enough to actually levy taxes. One picks a number, debate ensues, the number changes, marginal levels might be defined, contributions to the country are defined in a numerical manner, benefits from the country are defined in a numerical manner, other exceptions are decided upon, and one has a tax code. It is a long and laborious process. we end up with a tax code that is as fair as it can be in a two-party system.1
One can provide evidence that the concept of a fair share is nebulous by imagining that this message board needed money to stay online and that the money should come from users. Should everyone pay an equal amount of money? Or should there be a charge for every post instead of every user, and if so should there be marginal rates. Should lurkers pay money. Should all the money be raised by charging a fee for every day one accesses the board no matter how much or how little one uses in 24 hours. Should users suffering financial hardship pay less money. The only way to come to an agreement would be to set a deadline for taking the board offline, and even then the final plan might include a clause saying that this method will be used for one year and we will discuss everything again in 12 months.

And even that doesn't describe how nebulous a fair share is because we were working towards a fixed total. If there were an options to add features for more money and reduce features to save money, then the whole concept of defining fair share becomes an order of magnitude harder.

So. Yes I agree that it is so nebulous and that we can never find an objective standard for a complex system. But in the end we have to shoot for something.


(1) I will unhesitatingly acknowledge that the two-party system comes up with numbers very different from the case when the Libertarians and/or the Greens have a seat at the table.

...
 
Last edited:
Garrette said:
My thoughts exactly, and it was demonstrated last night with Clinton's "Trumped up trickle down" line. Obviously scripted, obviously pre-planned, obviously used as a hoped-for zinger, and completely a failure. It failed not because of the line but because that sort of thing does no suit Clinton's style.
Click to expand...

The line was pretty dumb as well. She'd have been better off stressing that Donald just wants to cut taxes on himself - it's true, and it really got under his skin when she said it later.
 
Ladewig said:
Yes. It is nebulous. But one cannot say that it is so nebulous than we cannot somewhat agree on a number. A fair share of taxes must be definable enough to actually levy taxes. One picks a number, debate ensues, the number changes, marginal levels might be defined, contributions to the country are defined in a numerical manner, benefits from the country are defined in a numerical manner, other exceptions are decided upon, and one has a tax code. It is a long and laborious process. we end up with a tax code that is as fair as it can be in a two-party system.1
One can provide evidence that the concept of a fair share is nebulous by imagining that this message board needed money to stay online and that the money should come from users. Should everyone pay an equal amount of money? Or should there be a charge for every post instead of every user, and if so should there be marginal rates. Should lurkers pay money. Should all the money be raised by charging a fee for every day one accesses the board no matter how much or how little one uses in 24 hours. Should users suffering financial hardship pay less money. The only way to come to an agreement would be to set a deadline for taking the board offline, and even then the final plan might include a clause saying that this method will be used for one year and we will discuss everything again in 12 months.

And even that doesn't describe how nebulous a fair share is because we were working towards a fixed total. If there were an options to add features for more money and reduce features to save money, then the whole concept of defining fair share becomes an order of magnitude harder.

So. Yes I agree that it is so nebulous and that we can never find an objective standard for a complex system. But in the end we have to shoot for something.


(1) I will unhesitatingly acknowledge that the two-party system comes up with numbers very different from the case when the Libertarians and/or the Greens have a seat at the table.

...
Click to expand...

As I said earlier, for purposes of this discussion, I will unilaterally accept the assumptions you put forward. But I won't do that unless you are willing to accept that your assumptions might lead to a result where you need to pay more and Trump needs a subsidy.
 
Stacko said:
He posted the following:
Nothing on emails. Nothing on the corrupt Clinton Foundation. And nothing on #Benghazi.

Sounds to me like he was whining.
Click to expand...
Huh!? The emails and Libya did come up. He just failed to capitalize on them because he has the attention span of a toddler.
Click to expand...
The tiny hands of one too.

I'm a bit suprised he'd want anyone discussing the Clinton Foundation, considering the Trump Foundation is having a few... issues.
 
It sure is nice to see the cry bay Trumptards bitching and complaining about the awful format of the debate last night while at the same time crowing about wonderfully Trump did at the debate last night.

And it will be even nicer to see in the weeks to come as Trump continues to be hammered down like the stupid, greedy, liar that he is.
 
Childlike Empress said:
Actually he did whine in his twitter feed.

He posted the following:
Nothing on emails. Nothing on the corrupt Clinton Foundation. And nothing on #Benghazi.

Sounds to me like he was whining.
Click to expand...
That's not whining. That's announcing the ammunition he hasn't used yet.
Click to expand...
No, it was whining. He's made a point of specifically referring to the moderator of Monday's debate in other discussions related to the emails/clinton foundation/etc..

The rest of your post is about partisan secondary sources.
Click to expand...
The sources I've posted may not necessarily be pro-trump, but they were quoting actual statements that he made.

If Trump says "Hillary is being mean" (basically the gist of his comment about the attack ads), and that same statement is quoted by reputable sources on both the right wing and left wing, it can be assumed to be correct.
 
Segnosaur said:
No, it was whining. He's made a point of specifically referring to the moderator of Monday's debate in other discussions related to the emails/clinton foundation/etc..


The sources I've posted may not necessarily be pro-trump, but they were quoting actual statements that he made.

If Trump says "Hillary is being mean" (basically the gist of his comment about the attack ads), and that same statement is quoted by reputable sources on both the right wing and left wing, it can be assumed to be correct.
Click to expand...
I watched baby Donald cry about Hillary running attack against him. Those ads are mainly videos of him talking.
 
If the Trumptards want to keep bitching and complaining in order to feel better, then they should continue to bitch and complain.

Personally, I think that they should do something more productive, however there is no such thing as a productive Trumptard.
 
I think it's kind of sweet to see rabid right wingers and America hating hard leftists smooching Trump.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom