Debate opinions?

[GMDino]

Since someone brought up Lincoln:

http://time.com/4524426/second-presidential-debate-hillary-clinton-abraham-lincoln/

Quote:Hillary Clinton turned to Abraham Lincoln for her defense when asked about a damaging line from a speech she gave on Wall Street revealed by Wikileaks on Friday. And not just any Lincoln, but Steven Spielberg’s version.


At the second presidential debate, a questioner asked the Democratic nominee about a statement she had made about politicians sometimes having a private stance and a public stance on an issue.
In response, she said that she was referring to how Lincoln got the 13th Amendment abolishing slavery passed, as depicted in the 2012 Spielberg film Lincoln.

“And I was making the point that it is hard sometimes to get the Congress to do what you want to do and you have to keep working at it and yes, President Lincoln was trying to convince some people, he used some arguments, convincing other people, he used other arguments,” she said. “That was a great — I thought a great display of presidential leadership.”

The 13th Amendment, ratified in December of 1865, marked the formal end of slavery in the United States. “Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction,” the amendment declares.

Though the ratification date coming after the end of the Civil War may make it seem that the amendment’s passage was a foregone conclusion, that was far from the case. In fact, the amendment was first debated about a year before Appomattox, and failed to pass the House of Representatives in 1864. Lincoln personally pushed for the Congress to reconsider as soon as possible.


In the book Lincoln and the Thirteenth Amendment, Christian G. Samito explains that legislators disagreed fiercely over the amendment: some feared that ending slavery before the war ended would discourage the South from surrendering, others worried that the amendment did not go far enough in defining rights for black Americans.

Some of Lincoln’s work to get the votes he needed took the form of small-scale political maneuvering—for example, Samito explains that there was an open seat for a judge position in Missouri, a state that was home to multiple congressmen who might be convinced, and that Lincoln did not announce whom he would appoint until after both of them had voted for the amendment—but there is one particular private/public difference to which Clinton was likely referring, based on the attention it received in the film.

That matter was the question of whether the amendment might derail a potential pre-abolition peace. The more likely peace seemed, the less likely it was that those on the fence would support the amendment. If peace seemed impossible, they were more likely to try support ending slavery as a wartime tactic, even if they were otherwise less firmly convinced that the end of slavery should be a priority.

David Herbert Donald‘s biography Lincoln explains how the president walked that balance:

Quote:One important bit of assistance Lincoln gave to the adoption of the Thirteenth Amendment he was not prepared to make public at the time. During the last days of debate in the House of Representatives, rumors spread that Confederate commissioners were on their way to Washington to negotiate a settlement, that peace was at hand. Fearing defections among the reluctant supporters of the measure, Ashley anxiously asked the President whether there was any truth in the reports. Choosing his words with care, Lincoln replied: “So far as I know, there are no peace commissioners in the city, or likely to be in it.” His note calmed the Democrats, who, as he said later, “would have gone off in a tangent at the last moment had they smelt Peace.”

In fact, at that very moment a Confederate peace commission, consisting of Alexander H. Stephens, the Vice President of the Confederacy, John A. Campbell, the Confederate assistant secretary of war, and Robert M.T. Hunter, the prominent Virginia Confederate senator, was crossing into Union lines—but at City Point, not Washington.

In other words, Lincoln did not reveal everything publicly that he knew privately. So how would Lincoln respond to a question about whether that was an appropriate thing for a president to do? At least as depicted in the film cited by Clinton, he believed it was perfectly appropriate in the service of a cause as great as abolition.

“See what is before you! See the here and now!” the fictionalized Lincoln said, in the screenplay by Tony Kushner. “That’s the hardest thing, the only thing that accounts!”

[GMDino]

http://qz.com/805005/the-leaked-email-behind-hillary-clintons-mid-debate-reference-to-steven-spielbergs-abraham-lincoln-biopic/

Quote:In her speech to the nonprofit, she argued that politicians “need both a public and a private position” in order to accomplish anything. The debate moderators asked Clinton on behalf of a voter, “Is it ok for politicians to be two-faced?”



Clinton responded with a review of Spielberg’s 2012 film Lincoln.


“As I recall, that was something I said about Abraham Lincoln after having seen the wonderful Steven Spielberg movie ‘Abraham Lincoln,'” she said. “It was a master class watching president Lincoln get the Congress to approve the 13th amendment, it was principled and strategic. I was making the point that it is hard sometimes to get the Congress to do what you want to do.”


Lincoln, as depicted in the Hollywood blockbuster, cleverly plays the political system to pass a constitutional amendment to outlaw slavery.



Clinton’s takeaway is that even the greatest politicians have to make deals to get things done, sometimes in compromises that get made behind closed doors. It reflects her pragmatism, even if it’s hardly the answer one might want to hear from a potential president.


Here’s the full excerpt of the remarks from the e-mail in question, with our emphasis:

Quote:*CLINTON SAYS YOU NEED TO HAVE A PRIVATE AND PUBLIC POSITION ON POLICY* *Clinton: “But If Everybody’s Watching, You Know, All Of The Back Room Discussions And The Deals, You Know, Then People Get A Little Nervous, To Say The Least. So, You Need Both A Public And A Private Position.”* CLINTON: You just have to sort of figure out how to — getting back to that word, “balance” — how to balance the public and the private efforts that are necessary to be successful, politically, and that’s not just a comment about today. That, I think, has probably been true for all of our history, and if you saw the Spielberg movie, Lincoln, and how he was maneuvering and working to get the 13th Amendment passed, and he called one of my favorite predecessors, Secretary Seward, who had been the governor and senator from New York, ran against Lincoln for president, and he told Seward, I need your help to get this done. And Seward called some of his lobbyist friends who knew how to make a deal, and they just kept going at it. I mean, politics is like sausage being made. It is unsavory, and it always has been that way, but we usually end up where we need to be. But if everybody’s watching, you know, all of the back room discussions and the deals, you know, then people get a little nervous, to say the least. So, you need both a public and a private position. And finally, I think — I believe in evidence-based decision making. I want to know what the facts are. I mean, it’s like when you guys go into some kind of a deal, you know, are you going to do that development or not, are you going to do that renovation or not, you know, you look at the numbers. You try to figure out what’s going to work and what’s not going to work. [Clinton Speech For National Multi-Housing Council, 4/24/13]

The excerpts came came from a hack of Clinton campaign chairman Jon Podesta’s email account. Wikileaks posted the hacked emails on its site just days after US national security officials confirmed that they believe Russia has launched a concerted effort to interfere in US elections through strategic leaks of confidential data.

[*michaelsean*]

Dino can't you vomit in the toilet like everyone else?

[GMDino]

(10-10-2016, 02:16 PM)michaelsean Wrote: Dino can't you vomit in the toilet like everyone else?

A little OCD.  I need facts and full stories.

That's why I didn't go into journalism...I saw the sound-bite generation coming up behind me in school.  

[Bengalholic]

I don't chime in to PnR often, but I did want to share some thoughts on the 2 debates so far.

In the first debate, I thought Hillary was the clear winner, and it wasn't even close. She was extremely poised, confident and baited the shit out of Trump. He seemed out of his element, completely unprepared and flat-out childish on many occasions.

With the second debate, I thought it was a lot closer, with Hillary having only a slight edge. I wouldn't disagree with those who called it a draw. Trump did better at being on the offensive and did score 2 or 3 pretty good jabs. He still had trouble maintaining any real composure though, and on certain topics...just sounded completely lost. I thought we saw Hillary get slightly rattled a couple of times, and she also avoided directly answering questions more than once, and had terrible responses on a couple of occasions. However, she still seemed much more presidential and simply far more knowledgeable/experienced on foreign policy topics.

I don't think these 2 debates have really changed the minds of anyone who was already supporting Hillary or Trump. I think they just re-affirmed what most already knew...both are liars, both are shady as hell and both come with never ending baggage. 

If I had to bet my house, I would say the Hillary will end up the victor and it probably won't be as close as some think. Overall though, I'm just very disappointed that these are the choices we're stuck with.

[Belsnickel]

(10-10-2016, 01:08 PM)bfine32 Wrote: It doesn't matter if we ask here who won. You give me a board member and I will tell you who they say won.

I do think Trump scored pretty big with the "You'd be in jail" and "blaming Honest Abe" jabs. I also found it hilarious when Hills was asked about calling Americans deplorables it became the Russian's fault.

I will say Hills was much more poised and appeared much more Presidential.

Trump came out strong with the comments like that, but then he would follow up with a lot of rambling that sounded like he had just filled his head with statistics and wanted to blurt them all out before he forgot them. I thought for a while that he had her on the ropes and was going to rule the debate, but his word salad responses and his whining about the moderation when he interrupted more, was given more opportunities to respond, and spoke longer kind of killed it for me. I was especially baffled when he accused the moderators of not asking about the emails when the question that had most recently been asked was about the emails. Neither of them came out looking good in this debate.

I will say this, that ending on a positive note thing was excellent. I was so happy to see that in there.

[Belsnickel]

Debate fact check from FactCheck.org

http://www.factcheck.org/2016/10/factchecking-the-second-presidential-debate/

[*bfine32*]

(10-10-2016, 02:56 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: I will say this, that ending on a positive note thing was excellent. I was so happy to see that in there.

Yep, but only one was gracious enough to say something positive about the other person. 

[GMDino]

(10-10-2016, 05:03 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Yep, but only one was gracious enough to say something positive about the other person. 

Moan, *****, complain....

[Rotobeast]

I have a new laptop and for some reason I cannot quote someone and copy/paste something in the reply.

So anyway....
Regarding Dino bringing up Trump's sniffling....
Bill Weld made mention of it.

Quote: HOROWITZ, 9:17: Do you think Mr. Trump is being effective in trying to pivot from his “locker room talk” (“I don’t think you understood what was said”) to knocking the hell out of ISIS, will work? How would you keep him on that point?:

WELD, 9:17: Trump is still sniffing loudly. He’s either had a cold for a long time, or he’s taking something that makes him sniff.

People will get that ISIS was a non sequitur, but at least he wasn’t snarling.

[Rotobeast]

Oh....
Almost forgot this actual poll from the Washington Times.

[Belsnickel]

(10-11-2016, 12:55 AM)Rotobeast Wrote: Oh....
Almost forgot this actual poll from the Washington Times.

Not surprising, that paper is one read by conservatives and it isn't a rag like some others, so its readers are going to go that route.

[GMDino]

(10-11-2016, 12:55 AM)Rotobeast Wrote: Oh....
Almost forgot this actual poll from the Washington Times.

I bet the Trump supporters are crowing the he won since Johnson wasn't there....  

[*PhilHos*]

One thing that made me laugh out loud (aside from the jail and Lincoln quips) was after Trump gave his answer about Muslims needing to help America reporting, Hillary berates Trump ava then talk about how Muslims should be reporting other Muslims. I was like , that's what Trump just said. Lol

Sent from my SPH-L710T using Tapatalk

[Belsnickel]

(10-11-2016, 01:12 PM)PhilHos Wrote: One thing that made me laugh out loud (aside from the jail and Lincoln quips) was after Trump gave his answer about Muslims needing to help America reporting, Hillary berates Trump ava then talk about how Muslims should be reporting other Muslims. I was like , that's what Trump just said. Lol

Sent from my SPH-L710T using Tapatalk

Yeah, neither one of them gave a very good performance on that stage. I asked a prof of political science I have lunch with somewhat regularly if he could bring himself to laugh at this or if he just cringed a lot. He said even with his sense of humor, it's hard to laugh at this situation.

[Rotobeast]

(10-11-2016, 07:38 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: Not surprising, that paper is one read by conservatives and it isn't a rag like some others, so its readers are going to go that route.

I figured as much.
It still tickles me.

(10-11-2016, 07:50 AM)GMDino Wrote: I bet the Trump supporters are crowing the he won since Johnson wasn't there....  

I'd wager you're correct.




Sent from my SM-S820L using Tapatalk

[tigerseye]

In the 1st debate Hillary won by alot.

In the 2nd debate Trump crushed her.

In the 3rd debate               ?

[Belsnickel]

(10-12-2016, 08:26 AM)tigerseye Wrote: In the 1st debate Hillary won by alot.

In the 2nd debate Trump crushed her.

In the 3rd debate               ?

The two post debate polls I have seen put Clinton as the winner. His much higher interruption rate, higher number of inaccurate statements, and his insistent whining about speaking time even though he got more time than she did, also point to an edge to Clinton. But, he came out strong and he was on the attack the whole time, he just came off bad. His base won't see it that way, but that's not who is going to be swayed by debates anyway. All in all, I call it essentially a draw.

[tigerseye]

Polls are only as honest as the organization performing the polls. Main Stream Media = (Main Stream Propaganda). Thanks to Bill Clintons work as President the media is now controlled by a small number of extemely rich individuals instead of being thousands of independent news reporting agencies. I do think that people are starting to wake up to what is going on though.

The 3rd debate should be interesting.

[Belsnickel]

(10-12-2016, 10:37 AM)tigerseye Wrote: Polls are only as honest as the organization performing the polls. Main Stream Media = (Main Stream Propaganda). Thanks to Bill Clintons work as President the media is now controlled by a small number of extemely rich individuals instead of being thousands of independent news reporting agencies. I do think that people are starting to wake up to what is going on though.

The 3rd debate should be interesting.

Any public opinion poll is flawed, no denying that. The issue is that we have nothing better to go by. It is also why you will often see two news organizations that tend to lean in opposite directions team up for a poll. Online polls that are posted on websites are meaningless, what pundits say don't necessarily reflect public opinion or even reality. So the best we have to go on is public polling.

Every news agency, every single one, is biased. There is no way around it, just the nature of the business.