Jump to content
Navv

General US Politics

Poll  

274 members have voted

  1. 1. Would you vote a third party?

    • Yes
      89
    • No
      111
    • Maybe
      74
  2. 2. Are you content with the results of the election?

    • Yes
      49
    • No
      111
    • Indifferent
      43


Recommended Posts

Pretty meh debate, I wanted blood.

The next Presidential debate is on Oct. 9, although it's really more of a Town Hall. The VP one is on Oct. 4.

Edited by General Ciraxis

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

First time watching Trump and Hillary live. Trump acted pretty much as expected. Hillary was far more relatable than expected, smiles, jokes, and hit back on a variety of points.

...as an outside observer, I don't see Trump having done any favors for himself tonight. Came off as amateur hour with all the ad hominems and the way he consistently interrupted and ranted off topic.

Clinton in contrast just looked rational, and prepared.

I would give Clinton the debate as she demonstrated far more self control than Mr. Trump. Also hilarious the way Trump kept denying statements he made previously.

...why am I supposed to take Trump seriously again? So very confused about that still. Why is this very unqualified individual being considered for a job requiring some of the highest qualifications on the planet?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A lot of rambling and talking points. Basically everything they say at their rallies, but this time to each others faces.

Both sides' supporters will think their candidate won, and I suspect a lot of undecideds will still be undecided.

Surprisingly no mention of Benghazi, Libya, or the Trump/Clinton Foundations. Lester Holt was also much more confrontational with Trump than he was with Hillary; Trump might as well have been debating two people.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Surprisingly no mention of Benghazi, Libya, or the Trump/Clinton Foundations. Lester Holt was also much more confrontational with Trump than he was with Hillary; Trump might as well have been debating two people.

About Benghazi and Libya... are we talking from the Moderator, or Trump? Because Trump went wildly off topic at least twice to go on rants that touched on those subjects.

The moderator was no more confrontational than any debate moderator would be in my estimation. Trump was called on interrupting and other improper debate procedure, he also appeared to take direct issue with the moderator at several points.

Clinton didn't do any of that behaviour, hence she didn't have any confrontation with the moderator. :\

...or did I miss something? :|

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I didn't hear any mention of Benghazi or Libya, myself. When talking about Hillary's foreign policy record, no one brought up her advocacy for the intervention in Libya.

And by confrontational, I meant that Holt was bringing up past comments and things on Trump but asked nothing of Hillary. Whether it's about the emails, the Clinton Foundation, her pneumonia (specifically, how it plays into her lack of trust among voters), her mentioned advocacy for Libya, or even her basket of deplorables comment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Trump mentioned Libya as a failure, Clinton said that he initially supported the intervention in Libya and was a business partner of Gaddafi. It was in with all the Iraq stuff. Clinton alluded to the Congressional hearing on Benghazi- I don't think the Trump camp thinks that bringing up Benghazi for the millionth time is going to be very effective.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Question: Has Trump in your opinion had any moderators that have not been confrontational towards him?

As for the ones you suggest... Those all seem rather loaded questions tbh, and mostly rehash topics that have already been discussed or have little to do with policies as far as I am aware? So I am not sure what they would have added to the debate?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

trumpers want to grill and bluster at clinton about benghazi for another hour because eight just wasn't enough

i haven't actually watched it yet but it sounds like it went like i thought it would. clinton will technically "win" the debate but it will matter little because of what life alluded to earlier: the standards clinton is held to have always been remarkably higher (by comparison versus trump only really) because she still attempts to play the reasonable politician who doesn't just spew the first thing that comes to mind

it would actually be a lot more entertaining if she did, but then she'd go trigger the trump supporters like she did with the 'deplorables' comment and we just can't have that sort of uncivil discourse in our political conversation

Edited by Crysta

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Question: Has Trump in your opinion had any moderators that have not been confrontational towards him?

As for the ones you suggest... Those all seem rather loaded questions tbh, and mostly rehash topics that have already been discussed or have little to do with policies as far as I am aware? So I am not sure what they would have added to the debate?

No, and I don't think it excuses it here either.

Also, considering this election is getting into whether someone has the personal qualities to be President, issues like her emails bring up questions about Hillary. Back in the Commander-in-Chief forum, there was a veteran who pointed out that if someone like him, who had a security clearance, had done what she had done then he would've been prosecuted.

Polls and surveys also show the email issue is actually important to voters.

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/large-majority-of-voters-actually-do-care-about-clintons-damn-emails/article/2602460

If you think some of the concerns (ignoring Benghazi, in case anyone gets the impression I believe that's an issue) I mentioned are loaded questions or right-wing conspiracies, well that's up to you. If the recent polling is accurate, then they must be pretty strong right-wing conspiracies for Hillary's position in state polls to have dropped as much as they have.

Edited by CyborgZeta

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Also, considering this election is getting into whether someone has the personal qualities to be President, issues like her emails bring up questions about Hillary. Back in the Commander-in-Chief forum, there was a veteran who pointed out that if someone like him, who had a security clearance, had done what she had done then he would've been prosecuted.

her e-mails have been done to death for the last year and however long and i don't think anyone who is still undecided right now is really going to be swayed if we bring it up yet again

and again

and again

it's so very important to the people who have already decided to vote against her, mostly

edit: she wasn't prosecuted just because there was no way to prove she intentionally mishandled the classified information; i know everyone wants to believe that she has the fbi in her pocket but i can't see that being something easily proven at all so i wasn't truly surprised. it happens with criminal chases with contaminated/circumstantial evidence, especially high-profile cases, re: jon benet ramsey's murder

i don't really blame anyone for pausing at trusting her with classified info because at best she made a grievous mistake; it's more that donald outright frightens me a lot more in regards to national security on several fronts. i can trust hillary to be intelligent though flawed - can't say the same for her opponent.

(ignoring Benghazi, in case anyone gets the impression I believe that's an issue)

then why even point that out lol?

and the best conspiracies are always the ones people desperately want to believe

edit2: watching the highlights now and it's even worse than i thought it'd be my god did he not prepare at all. he's acting as though she's been president for the last thirty years.

Edited by Crysta

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

edit: she wasn't prosecuted just because there was no way to prove she intentionally mishandled the classified information; i know everyone wants to believe that she has the fbi in her pocket but i can't see that being something easily proven at all so i wasn't truly surprised. it happens with criminal chases with contaminated/circumstantial evidence, especially high-profile cases, re: jon benet ramsey's murder

Except that intent should not really decide whether there should be prosecution or not. If you accidentally grievously injure someone or even kill a person, just because there was no intent of doing so doesn't mean you get off the punishment for committing a crime.

Edited by tuvarkz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Except that intent should not really decide whether there should be prosecution or not. If you accidentally grievously injure someone or even kill a person, just because there was no intent of doing so doesn't mean you get off the punishment for committing a crime.

I thought she got off because the classified information she'd sent had been deemed classified after she'd already sent them. Sure, handling such things with a private email is a stupid thing to do, but as far as I remember she didn't do anything criminal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The majority of them were, many of them were mislabeled (i think from outside sources), and like 3 of them were properly labeled but they had information that was already well known/documented by the public (Pakistani drone strikes). It was definitely something that warranted getting thrown out the window.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Except that intent should not really decide whether there should be prosecution or not. If you accidentally grievously injure someone or even kill a person, just because there was no intent of doing so doesn't mean you get off the punishment for committing a crime.

if there was evidence of actual physical harm being done as a result of this potential screw-up then i'm pretty sure they would have gone forward with it. intent and severity is taken into account; it's why i wasn't prosecuted when i got fired.

it really wasn't worth the resources it would have taken, imo. there's enough political theater as is.

this was never going to be the political nail in her coffin. you may wish it was, but that wish isn't coming true.

also if i remember from my journalism 101 class a lot of stupid bullshit gets classified because the government is almost obsessive-compulsive with that power; i have a feeling i would be hearing a lot more about the actual content of these documents if they held any truly dangerous intel because what the fuck

Edited by Crysta

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Again, I do find it strange (not really, considering how the government is, but regardless) how people like Snowden, Chelsea Manning and other whistleblowers get the fullest extent of the law brought down upon them even if their intent is good (the public must know), yet Hillary Clinton would perhaps be more at fault than these people for negligence if anything at all. It should be one or the other for both. Preferably all of them should have allegations dismissed.

Of course, the people who want Hillary jailed are probably the same that call the aforementioned traitors.

Edited by Tryhard

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

why? because the result was ultimately the same?

It seems foolish to differentiate between them from a perspective of justice. Not that from what I've heard and seen that the information revealed by Hillary's emails was particularly egregious.

I didn't see the debate yet, but I'm a little disappointed people thought it was boring.

Edited by Tryhard

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Again, I do find it strange (not really, considering how the government is, but regardless) how people like Snowden, Chelsea Manning and other whistleblowers get the fullest extent of the law brought down upon them even if their intent is good (the public must know), yet Hillary Clinton would perhaps be more at fault than these people for negligence if anything at all. It should be one or the other for both. Preferably all of them should have allegations dismissed.

Of course, the people who want Hillary jailed are probably the same that call the aforementioned traitors.

This isn't the thread, but reveling classified information should still be a crime. I would rather not know that the NSA is spying on my than have the Germans know that the invasion is happening at Normandy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It seems foolish to differentiate between them from a perspective of justice. Not that from what I've heard and seen that the information revealed by Hillary's emails was particularly egregious.

I didn't see the debate yet, but I'm a little disappointed people thought it was boring.

do you think something done accidentally should really have the same consequences as something done deliberately?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

do you think something done accidentally should really have the same consequences as something done deliberately?

Not necessarily. You're convinced that intent matters, so wouldn't an exception be made for the intent in the purpose of informing the public?

Do you think it's fair and just that whistleblowers are under exile, persecution or incarceration because of their actions? Why would they receive wildly different consequences (or, more accurately, any consequences at all compared to no consequences)?

Edited by Tryhard

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

her e-mails have been done to death for the last year and however long and i don't think anyone who is still undecided right now is really going to be swayed if we bring it up yet again

and again

and again

it's so very important to the people who have already decided to vote against her, mostly

edit: she wasn't prosecuted just because there was no way to prove she intentionally mishandled the classified information; i know everyone wants to believe that she has the fbi in her pocket but i can't see that being something easily proven at all so i wasn't truly surprised. it happens with criminal chases with contaminated/circumstantial evidence, especially high-profile cases, re: jon benet ramsey's murder

i don't really blame anyone for pausing at trusting her with classified info because at best she made a grievous mistake; it's more that donald outright frightens me a lot more in regards to national security on several fronts. i can trust hillary to be intelligent though flawed - can't say the same for her opponent.

Just because it's been done to death doesn't mean that it's not important.

There were bits of the US Drone program on her emails. There was evidence of collusion between media and DNC. There was evidence of the Clinton Foundation's peddling of diplomatic favours for money. There were 30 mentions of Libya and Benghazi in the emails at least. And it's possible that Obama also knew about the server and communicated on it.

And don't forget that Hillary commited perjury about the emails.

Yeah... this can't be done to death. I mean, if Colin Powell or Condaleeza Rice did this, they'd be sitting in prison for giving aid and comfort.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...