Could the debates change your mind?

[JustWinBaby]

(09-27-2016, 12:34 AM)bfine32 Wrote: Did anybody find it disrespectful on Hill's part for calling her opponent by his first name?

Well, they ARE on a first name basis....and Trump doesn't have a title like Senator, Governor or Secretary.

[*bfine32*]

(09-27-2016, 12:36 AM)JustWinBaby Wrote: Well, they ARE on a first name basis....and Trump doesn't have a title like Senator, Governor or Secretary.

So that's a no?

[GMDino]

(09-27-2016, 12:36 AM)JustWinBaby Wrote: Well, they ARE on a first name basis....and Trump doesn't have a title like Senator, Governor or Secretary.

And he jumped around and called her different things.

It's different when they are addressing each other directly.

[GMDino]

Fact check.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/fact-check-clinton-trump-wrong-article-1.2807425

Too long to copy and paste.  Yes, both sides told some whoppers.  

[GMDino]

And more fact checking.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2016/sep/26/trump-clinton-first-debate-fact-checks/

[GMDino]

Video of it:  https://twitter.com/ngreenberg/status/780607090612199424

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

For members of this board the answer is no. For your general citizen the only debate that matters, sans a humongous flub, is the last one. I have a sneaky suspicion Trump is waiting for the third debate to really unload. I wouldn't look for much vitriol from him until then.

[*michaelsean*]

To the OP, nope. Gary Johnson for me. I don't even know how much I like him, but it doesn't matter because he won't win, but maybe enough people will vote that way to raise the position of 3rd partys.

[*Nately120*]

(09-27-2016, 12:09 AM)bfine32 Wrote: We'll see. I think it was converse of what folks thought. Hills went on the attack and Trump on the defensive.

Is this a good thing for Trump?  How is a guy who can't/won't launch a full on blitzkrieg against a corrupt ol' hag going to handle bending Mexico over an 80-foot wall and blasting ISIS into the afterlife?  

But with the actual question...the debates certainly cemented my desire to vote for Johnson.

[Aquapod770]

Not really. There's a 99% chance I'm voting Johnson. Debates really don't change peoples minds at all. Romney whipped the floor with Obama last election cycle and it didn't do anything. People make up in their mind who they're voting for long before the debates.

[Aquapod770]

(09-27-2016, 12:59 AM)GMDino Wrote: And more fact checking.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2016/sep/26/trump-clinton-first-debate-fact-checks/

Dang. No mention of Clinton's perpetuation of the mythical wage gap   Hint: it has nothing to do with equal pay for equal work. 

[Johnny Cupcakes]

If Johnson and Stein participated in the votes, there would be a relatively small chance that I would change my mind, but I HIGHLY doubt that anything Trump could say in a debate could get me to change my mind on him.

I feel like this is the case with most voters. I don't see many people switching from Clinton to Trump or Trump to Clinton.

A better question could be: "What could the opposing candidate do to sway your vote?"

[Dill]

(09-26-2016, 08:51 AM)GMDino Wrote: Is there anything that could happen either positively or negatively that would make you even consider switching your vote for either Trump or Clinton or to got 3rd or 4th party?

Yes, of course. 

If Hillary comes out calling men "pricks" and "a-holes" and  fat slobs, making fun of "Donny's little hands," tweeting out pictures of Bill's sixpack compared to Trump's spare tire, and then says one nuke could solve the ISIS problem after she has fired the joint chiefs of staff,

while Trump comes out and apologizes for previous comments about women and ethnic groups, cancels his Twitter account, affirms a woman's right to choose, renounces the wall as a bad, racist idea, sets forth a plan to work us towards 80% green energy in the next 20 years, and says we need to work diplomatically with Muslim governments in the middle east (without blathering on about "radical Islam"), then I could see myself leaning towards Trump.


Nothing is set in stone.

[*michaelsean*]

(10-05-2016, 03:02 PM)Dill Wrote: Yes, of course. 

If Hillary comes out calling men "pricks" and "a-holes" and  fat slobs, making fun of "Donny's little hands," tweeting out pictures of Bill's sixpack compared to Trump's spare tire, and then says one nuke could solve the ISIS problem after she has fired the joint chiefs of staff,

while Trump comes out and apologizes for previous comments about women and ethnic groups, cancels his Twitter account, affirms a woman's right to choose, renounces the wall as a bad, racist idea, sets forth a plan to work us towards 80% green energy in the next 20 years, and says we need to work diplomatically with Muslim governments in the middle east (without blathering on about "radical Islam"), then I could see myself leaning towards Trump.


Nothing is set in stone.

Just out of curiosity, why would the wall be racist?

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

I suppose the debates could make me dislike both of these two turds even more.

[Dill]

(10-05-2016, 05:02 PM)michaelsean Wrote: Just out of curiosity, why would the wall be racist?

It would be if the goal were lowering the population of brown folks arriving from south of the border and drawing support from the alt right and others concerned about the browning of the "white" U.S.

A wall in itself would not necessarily be racist, and might even be sensible policy in places, but deployed along with rhetoric identifying groups by racial and ethnic stereotypes, encouraging fear and loathing, then it becomes so. Making "Them" pay for it also has an authoritarian and punitive appeal for people who want to punish the "invaders" too.

[Aquapod770]

(10-07-2016, 02:10 PM)Dill Wrote: It would be if the goal were lowering the population of brown folks arriving from south of the border and drawing support from the alt right and others concerned about the browning of the "white" U.S.

A wall in itself would not necessarily be racist, and might even be sensible policy in places, but deployed along with rhetoric identifying groups by racial and ethnic stereotypes, encouraging fear and loathing, then it becomes so. Making "Them" pay for it also has an authoritarian and punitive appeal for people who want to punish the "invaders" too.

 So you claim to know the "real" goal of the wall? 



But I do agree it is quite authoritarian and authoritarianism sucks. Which is why I'm not voting for Trump and definitely not voting for Hilldog. 

[Dill]

(10-07-2016, 04:37 PM)Aquapod770 Wrote:  So you claim to know the "real" goal of the wall? . 

Yes. One "real" goal. There could be more.

[Rotobeast]

(10-05-2016, 05:02 PM)michaelsean Wrote: Just out of curiosity, why would the wall be racist?

Because it's going to be one long federal maximum security prison and everyone knows we only send non-whites to such a place.


We'll leave the Mexican side pretty well open, so they'll at least pay for half of it, to keep the influx of criminals down.


Sent from my SM-S820L using Tapatalk