Who Won The Debate?

[Wes Mantooth]

These two are the best we got? How did we get here? I think the two-party system needs to drastically altered. How? I have no idea. I just know two sides are pandering to the extremes of both sides.

There is nothing Presidential about Donald Trump IMHO. I don't want the leader of the greatest country in the history of the world to ever, ever bring up the size of his you know what. I don't want to comment on whether a woman is a 10 or not, or if that fat, or ugly, or any of that. I don't want a glorified mail order bride to be our First Lady either. Having a guy who was on a reality show on NBC be the leader of the free world is one step away of the character Terry Crews played in Idiocracy. The whole scene is just flat out embarrassing.

And then there's Hillary. Don't think I'm any fonder of her either. What a phony. Trump is a complete clown but at least he has a personality, be it oft-putting. This woman is so full of shit she probably doesn't know what her real feeling are on anymore.

Man, I hate them both. How could neither party come up with a better candidate? I didn't love Kasich or Jeb either, but how did the Republican party and American people allow Donald Trump to win the nomination? I guess it just push back for the extremes we're seeing from the other side.

The phrase "The Whole World is Watching", yeah and they're probably laughing. Can't we make some quick scientific advances and just clone Kennedy and Reagan, and just let them alternate every 4 years or something? Cuz if this is the best we can do then we need to figure out a way to do a whole lot better.

[GMDino]

(09-27-2016, 04:50 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Yep and then Holt really pressed the matter by asking Hills did she want to respond and then on to the more pressing subjects of birther movement and personal taxes.

Whhhaaaa.

Trump supporters sound just like him. 

[Vas Deferens]

(09-27-2016, 04:51 PM)Wes Mantooth Wrote: These two are the best we got?  How did we get here?  I think the two-party system needs to drastically altered.  How?  I have no idea.  I just know two sides are pandering to the extremes of both sides.

There is nothing Presidential about Donald Trump IMHO.  I don't want the leader of the greatest country in the history of the world to ever, ever bring up the size of his you know what.  I don't want to comment on whether a woman is a 10 or not, or if that fat, or ugly, or any of that.  I don't want a glorified mail order bride to be our First Lady either.  Having a guy who was on a reality show on NBC be the leader of the free world is one step away of the character Terry Crews played in Idiocracy.  The whole scene is just flat out embarrassing.

And then there's Hillary.  Don't think I'm any fonder of her either.  What a phony.  Trump is a complete clown but at least he has a personality, be it oft-putting.  This woman is so full of shit she probably doesn't know what her real feeling are on anymore.

Man, I hate them both.  How could neither party come up with a better candidate?  I didn't love Kasich or Jeb either, but how did the Republican party  and American people allow Donald Trump to win the nomination?  I guess it just push back for the extremes we're seeing from the other side.

The phrase "The Whole World is Watching", yeah and they're probably laughing.  Can't we make some quick scientific advances and just clone Kennedy and Reagan, and just let them alternate every 4 years or something?  Cuz if this is the best we can do then we need to figure out a way to do a whole lot better.  

Dems couldn't come up with a better candidate because the system was rigged in her favor from the start.  DWS was a hillary shill from the beginning and nobody else had a shot at the nomination.  I think that is the real shame here.  

As for the right...  Seems like its too fractured, Trump just channeled the anger amongst the base the best of all of them.  Sad, but at least it wasn't rigged.

[*TheLeonardLeap*]

Don't know who won, but I do know who lost: Americans.

No matter who wins this election, we are all F'd in the A. Like a choice between AIDS and Stage 4 Cancer.

[Bengalbug]

(09-27-2016, 05:21 PM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: Don't know who won, but I do know who lost: Americans.

No matter who wins this election, we are all F'd in the A. Like a choice between AIDS and Stage 4 Cancer.

AIDS, you can live a long life with AIDS, stage 4 is pretty much what it is.  

[Vas Deferens]

(09-27-2016, 05:22 PM)Bengalbug Wrote: AIDS, you can live a long life with AIDS, stage 4 is pretty much what it is.  

Its possible, but its going to be expensive :)

[*rfaulk34*]

(09-27-2016, 04:43 PM)GMDino Wrote: Yep and then Holt asked her and she responded and Trump talked about her response and then AFTER the debate sent out a tweet that they didn't talk about her emails.  

Maybe his interpretation of talk about is, him accusing her for two minutes while Lester Holt tries to interject and Trump says "excuse me. Do you want me to answer the question?"

[*rfaulk34*]

(09-27-2016, 04:46 PM)GMDino Wrote: I just feel so bad for Trump.

- His microphone may have been deliberately made to not work properly.
- He thinks they didn't talk about the emails even though he brought it up and it was talked about.
- He didn't know people would actually remember things he said when he denied them right after the debate.
- He knew they would ask him about the birther thing and he didn't have answer ready.
- He knew they talk about his taxes and didn't have an answer ready.


The list just goes on and on on how this was rigged to make him look unprepared.

I think his biggest gaffe by far was the question about race relations and recent shootings. He just stumbled out some stuff about law and order and stammered through his 2 minutes, changing the subject to all the murders in Chicago.

[*rfaulk34*]

(09-27-2016, 04:50 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Yep and then Holt really pressed the matter by asking Hills did she want to respond and then on to the more pressing subjects of birther movement and personal taxes.

I did notice that on several occasions, Clinton zinged, the crowd reacted in a more than audible enough way, but nothing was ever said again.

[*rfaulk34*]

(09-27-2016, 04:51 PM)Wes Mantooth Wrote: These two are the best we got? How did we get here? I think the two-party system needs to drastically altered. How? I have no idea. I just know two sides are pandering to the extremes of both sides.

There is nothing Presidential about Donald Trump IMHO. I don't want the leader of the greatest country in the history of the world to ever, ever bring up the size of his you know what. I don't want to comment on whether a woman is a 10 or not, or if that fat, or ugly, or any of that. I don't want a glorified mail order bride to be our First Lady either. Having a guy who was on a reality show on NBC be the leader of the free world is one step away of the character Terry Crews played in Idiocracy. The whole scene is just flat out embarrassing.

And then there's Hillary. Don't think I'm any fonder of her either. What a phony. Trump is a complete clown but at least he has a personality, be it oft-putting. This woman is so full of shit she probably doesn't know what her real feeling are on anymore.

Man, I hate them both. How could neither party come up with a better candidate? I didn't love Kasich or Jeb either, but how did the Republican party and American people allow Donald Trump to win the nomination? I guess it just push back for the extremes we're seeing from the other side.

The phrase "The Whole World is Watching", yeah and they're probably laughing. Can't we make some quick scientific advances and just clone Kennedy and Reagan, and just let them alternate every 4 years or something? Cuz if this is the best we can do then we need to figure out a way to do a whole lot better.

The only reason i watched, and plan to watch the others, is to see if there's any way that either of them can sway me into voting for them. Early results are in, and the answer right now is...





still a no.

[GMDino]

(09-27-2016, 06:04 PM)rfaulk34 Wrote: Maybe his interpretation of talk about is, him accusing her for two minutes while Lester Holt tries to interject and Trump says "excuse me. Do you want me to answer the question?"

Well the emails had nothing to do with his tax returns or the lie he tells about why he won't release them.

[*PhilHos*]

I think Trump had a couple of missed opportunities to get Hillary flustered or on the defensive. For example, when she started speculating as to why Trump won't release his tax returns, he could've responded with his own speculations as to what was in the 33,000 emails she deleted (or whatever the number is).

There was another moment that I can't remember but I remember thinking at the time, why doesn't he bring it up about her? You know, one of those times where she called him out for something that she's also guilty of.

As to Holt, while I think overall he was basically even-handed, I can see the argument of how he was slightly one-sided. It's true that he shushed the audience after they supported a Trump statement but never said anything again. And I don't think he should've "fact checked" Trump nor should he fact check eithe rcandidate. However, I think generally speaking, he was mostly fair, maybe a bit one-sided.

IMO, I think the moderator should ask the questions and then basically make sure they don't go over time (which Holt most absolutely did NOT do for either candidate), to make sure they don't interrupt each other (looking at you, Donald), and to make sure the audience remains quiet throughout.

[Belsnickel]

(09-28-2016, 12:22 PM)PhilHos Wrote: I think Trump had a couple of missed opportunities to get Hillary flustered or on the defensive. For example, when she started speculating as to why Trump won't release his tax returns, he could've responded with his own speculations as to what was in the 33,000 emails she deleted (or whatever the number is).

There was another moment that I can't remember but I remember thinking at the time, why doesn't he bring it up about her? You know, one of those times where she called him out for something that she's also guilty of.

As to Holt, while I think overall he was basically even-handed, I can see the argument of how he was slightly one-sided. It's true that he shushed the audience after they supported a Trump statement but never said anything again. And I don't think he should've "fact checked" Trump nor should he fact check eithe rcandidate. However, I think generally speaking, he was mostly fair, maybe a bit one-sided.

IMO, I think the moderator should ask the questions and then basically make sure they don't go over time (which Holt most absolutely did NOT do for either candidate), to make sure they don't interrupt each other (looking at you, Donald), and to make sure the audience remains quiet throughout.

I waffle on the fact checking. A part of me like the idea of the moderator, or someone else, checking things. The other part thinks it should be up to their opponent(s) to check that, it is a debate after all. You generally know the bullshit the other person is going to throw out there, have the info ready to shoot them down.

[*PhilHos*]

(09-28-2016, 12:36 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: I waffle on the fact checking. A part of me like the idea of the moderator, or someone else, checking things. The other part thinks it should be up to their opponent(s) to check that, it is a debate after all. You generally know the bullshit the other person is going to throw out there, have the info ready to shoot them down.

I'd rather not have the moderator do the fact checking because it gives the candidates an out if they're perceived as the loser of the debate. Imagine you have a guy who always tells the truth versus a guy who always lies. If the moderator fact checks, he'd only fact check one and even though the guy is a liar, it would look like the moderator is in league with one of the candidates. Now, this would never happen in real life, I know, but it is possible that one candidate might be more prone to non-factual statements leading to more fact checking than his/her opponent which would still lead to the possibility of the appearance of impropriety by the moderator. It's why I think it best to let the candidates and pundits afterwards, do the fact checking. Either that or have 2 moderators, one for each candidate picked by the other candidate. Like have Sean Hannity question/fact check Hillary and have Christ Matthews question/fact check Trump. Would definitely be interesting.

[GMDino]

(09-28-2016, 12:36 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: I waffle on the fact checking. A part of me like the idea of the moderator, or someone else, checking things. The other part thinks it should be up to their opponent(s) to check that, it is a debate after all. You generally know the bullshit the other person is going to throw out there, have the info ready to shoot them down.

But when Candidate A says "I love ice cream!  Always have!" And candidate B retorts "You said in 2012 you hated ice cream and we have the tweet to prove it" the people watching at home who already think candidate B is a liar will just think they are lying.  And let's face it, Trump can lie with the best of them and his supporters are sure Clinton lies more.

If the moderator says it at least they are to be considered mostly neutral.

IMHO.

Of course in this case Trump thought Holt was a Democrat so he would be biased against him and he's actually a Republican.  

So maybe the truth doesn't even matter to so many people it would be a waste of time?

[Belsnickel]

(09-28-2016, 12:44 PM)GMDino Wrote: But when Candidate A says "I love ice cream!  Always have!" And candidate B retorts "You said in 2012 you hated ice cream and we have the tweet to prove it" the people watching at home who already think candidate B is a liar will just think they are lying.  And let's face it, Trump can lie with the best of them and his supporters are sure Clinton lies more.

If the moderator says it at least they are to be considered mostly neutral.

IMHO.

Of course in this case Trump thought Holt was a Democrat so he would be biased against him and he's actually a Republican.  

So maybe the truth doesn't even matter to so many people it would be a waste of time?

That's the answer, right there. In all seriousness, to a lot of people, facts don't matter. Part of it is because I truly doubt a lot of these people understand what a fact actually is.

I get what you're saying in this, though, and it's true that my stance on this is geared more towards an actual debate rather than the public display of asshattery that comes along in the election cycles. Maybe there should be behind the scenes fact checkers that are doing it real time and each candidate has a display on their podium that gives a giant red 'X' and buzzes when they lie.

[Belsnickel]

(09-28-2016, 12:42 PM)PhilHos Wrote: I'd rather not have the moderator do the fact checking because it gives the candidates an out if they're perceived as the loser of the debate. Imagine you have a guy who always tells the truth versus a guy who always lies. If the moderator fact checks, he'd only fact check one and even though the guy is a liar, it would look like the moderator is in league with one of the candidates. Now, this would never happen in real life, I know, but it is possible that one candidate might be more prone to non-factual statements leading to more fact checking than his/her opponent which would still lead to the possibility of the appearance of impropriety by the moderator. It's why I think it best to let the candidates and pundits afterwards, do the fact checking. Either that or have 2 moderators, one for each candidate picked by the other candidate. Like have Sean Hannity question/fact check Hillary and have Christ Matthews question/fact check Trump. Would definitely be interesting.

Saw this after my above post. I like the idea of behind-the-scenes fact check team, names published, and chosen from a number of different sources, fact checking the candidates and making a rather obvious display of it. Maybe not the 'X' on the podium, but a big screen behind or in front of them that they can add quotes to and display whether they were true or false, right there on the stage.

[*PhilHos*]

(09-28-2016, 12:50 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Saw this after my above post. I like the idea of behind-the-scenes fact check team, names published, and chosen from a number of different sources, fact checking the candidates and making a rather obvious display of it. Maybe not the 'X' on the podium, but a big screen behind or in front of them that they can add quotes to and display whether they were true or false, right there on the stage.

Definitely would be interesting. Candidates would DEFINITELY have to watch what they say.

Part of the problem, though, with "fact checking" is that a lot of it seems to be opinion-based. It's one thing to say that "HIllary said..." and she clearly did NOT say that. But then on the other hand, when you say, "Trump's plan would raise the deficit by ..." she may be getting that from a source, but that source could be biased and whatnot.

But, still, I kind of like your idea.

[treee]

To the title: Oligarchs.