Who won the first US Presidential Debate of 2016?
Displaying poll results.18669 total votes.
The F-15 Eagle: If it's up, we'll shoot it down. If it's down, we'll blow it up. -- A McDonnel-Douglas ad from a few years ago
The F-15 Eagle: If it's up, we'll shoot it down. If it's down, we'll blow it up. -- A McDonnel-Douglas ad from a few years ago
The corporations (Score:2)
They always win every Presidential and Congressional debate.
Missing Option (Score:2)
Vladimir Putin, ftw!
Re:The corporations (Score:5, Insightful)
Yeah, the people can change this by kicking the incumbent who's owned by corporations out of office and instead choosing one of the other candidates who are also all owned by the corporations.
Questions to Hillary's fans (Score:4, Informative)
During the debate, Secretary Clinton threw some (what she believed to be) barbs at Mr. Trump, which left me puzzled:
Anyone?
Re: Questions to Hillary's fans (Score:2, Informative)
It's racist in both cases. It's why the former head of the RNC, Michael Steele, ordered the mainstream party members to stay away from it.
Trump was playing on racial distrust of Latinos with his Cruz BS.
Re: (Score:3)
/s
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
It's racist in both cases.
If you're a progressive, everything is racist. This is why sensible people have stopped caring about accusations of racism. The word has lost all meaning, due to overuse.
Re: (Score:2)
Not so much racist as being a bigot.
I can not tell you how many of my conservative coworkers claim on one hand they are not bigots and filled with hate, and then spout off something about taking away the liberty and freedoms of a group of people that are different from them. Do you know how many of them are freaking out over the thought of a transgender person sharing a public bathroom with them or their kids(cause think of the kids) . When asked if they ever look over the bathroom stalls to check to make
Re: (Score:3)
You're missing the point on the bathroom thing, from the conservative point of view: the bathroom names are euphemisms, we say "men" and "women" to be polite, but the intent is "penis" and "vagina"? Why? Because sexual predators are far more common than pre-op transsexuals. You need some legal consequence for someone who isn't in any way trans-anything, but who is just looking for a victim alone in an isolated place.
Actually good engineers push the boundaries all the time. That is how they succeed.
Which has nothing to do with being skeptical of new fads and short-cuts. As a senior eng
Re:Questions to Hillary's fans (Score:5, Informative)
1) It's controversial because of how and when he said it. Specifically, one of his campaign managers fired a woman for being pregnant, and Trump was excusing this inexcusable behavior.
2) The birther lie was rascist. (Also if you FOLLoWED that link you posted, it has snopes saying Hillary did NOT bring it up first). The reason it is racist is multiple issues. Trump kept the issue going long after Obama presented his birth certificate and stated that he only stopped doing it because black people said it was racist. The McCain and Cruz issues were in fact far more relevant, as neither was born in the US, while Obama was born in Hawaii. In addition, they were only brought up AFTER the Democrats complained about all the racist bullshit being done to Obama.
Basically, they gave Obama a lot more trouble than any of the white people. When a cop pulls over a black guy and a white guy for the same crime, with the same evidence, and the white guy gets off immediately, while the black guy gets strip searched and repeatedly brought into court, that's racist.
No, the cop can't say "He got off eventually" and pretend he wasn't racist.
Trump tried to pull that with Obama - he dragged an obviously and patently false complaint on for years after it should have been settled. Why? Because Obama was an African American. They could not magically get rid of the "African" part, sot hey attempted to lie and claim he wasn't American.
Re:Questions to Hillary's fans (Score:5, Insightful)
2. Plus, McCain's and Cruz's birthplaces only became an issue because of the precedent set by the birthers about Obama. And the Obama issue only came up because it was so easy to paint an image of 'foreignness' in racist minds. Nobody ever thought to question a candidate's personal biography in that way before.
An appropriate question for Trump on this issue would've been
Mr Trump, in 2011, you went on television and said "My investigators in Hawaii can't believe what they are finding ". Who were those investigators, and what were they finding?
Since it's now obvious that there was nothing to find, and even Trump admits that, that would be framing the question, quite reasonably, as you lied in 2011, and you're still lying now about having lied then. Why can't you just apologize for what was a truly disgraceful episode.
Re: (Score:2)
In the age of post-factual politics, Trump only has to keep making insinuations and vague suggestions that there is something there. Then people will take that as confirmation of their existing view that Obama is a Muslim from Kenya, and support him. They will assume be knows it to be true but just can't say it because of the vast conspiracy to keep Obama in office.
Trump isn't the only one who does this. We say it a lot during the Brexit campaign, and we see Republicans using it often too (e.g. endlessly re
Re: (Score:3)
Nope. [snopes.com]
Re:Questions to Hillary's fans (Score:4, Informative)
1) It's controversial because of how and when he said it. Specifically, one of his campaign managers fired a woman for being pregnant, and Trump was excusing this inexcusable behavior.
2) The birther lie was rascist. (Also if you FOLLoWED that link you posted, it has snopes saying Hillary did NOT bring it up first).
That Hillary Clinton supporters circulated such an e-mail isn't in question, but the claim that that's the moment the birther theory "first emerged" simply isn't true. The likeliest point of origin we've been able to find was a post on conservative message board FreeRepublic.com dated 1 March 2008 (which, according to a report in The Telegraph, was at least a month before Clinton supporters got on the e-mail bandwagon).
Snopes [snopes.com] (emphasis mine)
Read that first sentence. The point is that Hillary and / or her supporters were birthers during the 2008 campaign. I personally doubt the birth certificate which has been released, but it is a moot point. Under the current interpretation of natural born citizen, as long as either parent is a US citizen at the time of the child's birth, the child is a natural born citizen.
Re: (Score:2)
Conspiracy theories are a hell of a drug. You might want to talk to a doctor instead of self medicating.
Re: (Score:2)
Conspiracy theories are a hell of a drug. You might want to talk to a doctor instead of self medicating.
Perhaps my tone didn't come through. Yes, I doubt the birth certificate, but based on how "natural born citizen" is currently understood, it's not worth my time. Because Obama is a natural born citizen via his mother, proving he was born in Kenya would have zero legal implications; at most it would create doubts in the minds of potential voters. Since Obama was elected (then re-elected), there is little to no value to beat the dead horse.
Re: (Score:3)
But what you haven't considered is that perhaps Obama's enemies knew he would be evasive prior to releasing it which they planned to use to get a lot of attention from the evasiveness and he knew that they knew about his evasiveness plan which was all a distraction to steal our precious bodily fluids!
Re: Questions to Hillary's fans (Score:2)
Can somebody explain why country of birth is even important. I know it's in the constitution, but for a country that prides itself on the idea that anyone can achieve anything with hard work it seems a little hypocritical.
Re: Natural Born Citizens (Score:3)
Can somebody explain why country of birth is even important. I know it's in the constitution, but for a country that prides itself on the idea that anyone can achieve anything with hard work it seems a little hypocritical.
The US Constitution says that among other qualifications the President must be a "natural born citizen" [wikipedia.org]. Being in the Constitution - the highest law of the land - is what makes it important. "Natural born citizen" means the individual is a citizen based on the facts / conditions of their birth. Anyone born in the US is a natural born citizen. Current interpretation also includes individuals with at least parent being a citizen at the time regardless of place of birth.
Re: (Score:3)
It's worth noting that when questions regarding McCain's eligibility came up in 2008, the Senate passed a resolution recognizing that he is a"natural born citizen."
Two of the sponsors of that resolution: Senator Barack Obama and Senator Hillary Clinton.
It was a different time not so long ago...
Re: (Score:3)
Can somebody explain why country of birth is even important. I know it's in the constitution, but for a country that prides itself on the idea that anyone can achieve anything with hard work it seems a little hypocritical.
The US Constitution says that among other qualifications the President must be a "natural born citizen" [wikipedia.org]. Being in the Constitution - the highest law of the land - is what makes it important. "Natural born citizen" means the individual is a citizen based on the facts / conditions of their birth. Anyone born in the US is a natural born citizen. Current interpretation also includes individuals with at least parent being a citizen at the time regardless of place of birth.
You didn't actually answer the question as to importance. You just repeated what was already stated to be known, without realizing that all your yammering about being in the Constitution only demonstrates a lack of substance because of it. They didn't even ask what natural-born citizen meant. They asked for an explanation for its importance, and stated why they found it hypocritical. You didn't address the concern at all. Explain it.
It being in the Constitution means we must follow it until the Constitution is amended. Read the Wikipedia article [wikipedia.org] if you want a full list of why it was included (mostly to avoid having a President with possibly conflicting loyalties) and the various attempts to change it (including Orrin Hatch trying to make the Governator elligible).
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
1) No, truth is not relative, but INSULTS are. When you say things in one context, they are bare truth. In another, they are discriminatory and insulting. For example, saying "I don't accept stolen food" is always true, but saying it after I offer you a sandwich is insulting because it implies that I stole the sandwich. You damn well better have a video of me stealing it, or you are just an a-hole.
2) (Followed response) You strongly implied, which is just as bad as saying it.
3) You want evidence that
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Last I looked, pregnancy was a natural aspect of humanity. I suppose it's an inconvenience if you think people exist solely to earn you money, and those who can't (however temporarily) should be punished for it.
Re: (Score:2)
Some people think children are a lifestyle choice and that they should not have to subsidise them in any way. They also expect there to be people around to do jobs and pay taxes when they get old, and to keep immigration low.
Some people feel that because their contribution to the child creation process only takes five minutes and they would rather put in some overtime than see the little buggers once the pop out, they should naturally be rewarded. Really it should be the other way, with the same kind of soc
Re: (Score:2)
Truth needs context. Even the undeniable, scientific truth of Newton's Laws, are only true within the context of non-relativistic, non-quantum environments. "The pure and simple truth is rarely pure and never simple."
I know, it's mind-blowing. Better retreat back to the catchy, comforting soundbites spewed by your favorite candidate (whichever it may be), that fits your simplistic worldview.
Re: (Score:2)
Truth needs context. Even the undeniable, scientific truth of Newton's Laws, are only true within the context of non-relativistic, non-quantum environments. "The pure and simple truth is rarely pure and never simple."
I know, it's mind-blowing. Better retreat back to the catchy, comforting soundbites spewed by your favorite candidate (whichever it may be), that fits your simplistic worldview.
No I want freaking competence!
This man will have nuclear codes to all the atomic weapons and stated he would shoot an opposing boat if they tried an act of bullying. This what is called an act of war.
All the other stuff with voting for folks like a football team is scary. This is not entertainment and serious business.
Re: (Score:2)
The context is Trump himself and how he treats women, compounded with the way he runs his businesses (regularly screwing people over.)
Re: (Score:2)
The McCain campaign did not publicly release his birth certificate.
http://voices.washingtonpost.c... [washingtonpost.com]
Re: (Score:2)
A woman leaving her position at a company for weeks/months? Her work needs to be spread to her colleagues, and no permanent replacement can be hired... Of course, it is inconvenient! How is this in any way controversial?
Clinton framed it as his misogynistic view on women. Trump certainly is a misogynistic and this may not have been the best example; however, Trump's response was to deny the ever said it which was easy to disprove. If he believes his statements why not defend them? She may not shown that he's misogynistic but she did show him to be willing to lie about anything.
Leaving aside, whether or not it was a "lie" or who was the first to bring it up [snopes.com], how is it racist? McCain's eligibility was questioned in 2008 — he presented his birth certificate and that ended it.
Let's start out with facts: Factually McCain was not born in the 50 states; questioning his candidacy was fair but it ended when facts where shown t
Re:Questions to YOU! (Score:2)
A question to you back?
I know Americans like to root for the teams in politics like football and cheer on and boo their favorite and opposing teams. But let me ask you this?:
You saw the debate? You saw Trump's temperament, competence, and how he would respond to stress and criticism first hand. On your team or ideology or not do you really trust someone like that with full nuclear codes for all the atomic weapons and be commander in chief of all the American Military?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I don't really give a shit for Hillary, but you and I must have watched completely different debates. Trump couldn't have done a better job of avoiding providing an actual answer, so much so, that Lester had to re-ask Trump a number of questions because Trump always derailed and his answer turned into off-topic tangents. And even after being re-asked, on a number of occasions he still couldn't provide a clear answer.
Re:Questions to Hillary's fans (Score:5, Insightful)
>Lester kept interrupting him mid-answer
No, it wasn't "mid answer". It was "mid off-topic rant". In order for it to be "mid answer" Trump would have to actually be in the midle of answering the question. But he wasn't. Lester would ask a question. and within 1 to 2 seconds, Trump would redirect to "answering" a different question that wasn't asked. Lester would let him go for 20 seconds. When it was clear Trump was purposely not answering the question asked, Lester would interrupt to basically say that's not the question I asked. Trump would cut Lester off and continue on with another 20 seconds of not answering the question. When Trump was done talking, the question asked (twice) was never even touched upon.
Candidates out there have a limited amount of time to speak. I think it's actually polite of the moderator to interrupt and try to redirrect the candidate to answering the correct question, so that, in case they accidentally misunderstood the question, they don't waste all of their time answering the wrong question and then run out of time and not be able to asked what was actually asked. Of course, in Trumps case there was no accidental misunderstanding. It was purposeful misdirection.
Re:Questions to Hillary's fans (Score:4, Insightful)
Lester kept interrupting him mid-answer. In fact many times Trump had to stop Lester from talking over him and cutting him off.
Dude, watch it again. Lester points to trump to answer a simple question. Trump then goes off on a 3-4 minute tirade without providing a simple answer to the question, usually going on about something else completely different. Understanding what is happening, Lester gets Trump back on the tracks(or at least tries), and the only way to do that, was to stop trump mid-word-vomit. Trump is essentially going into a stream-of-consciousness rant/tangent and it seemed he didn't really know what he was talking about himself, he was just saying things that sounded good in his vapid mind. Lester is there to MODERATE. If he identifies the candidate as not answering the question, he'll pull him back to the question that has been left unanswered.
Frankly it was fucking obvious that Lester is a pro-Hillary stooge.
Frankly I don't blame Lester, a registered Republican, for liking Hillary more. But he wasn't showing any specific bias. He gave Hillary good questions and she gave good answers. She wasn't beating around the bush, so he didn't need to reel her in like he did Trump. If that's being a pro-Hillary stooge, then your basic concepts of bias are incredibly uncalibrated.
There are already a vast number of republican politicians, and now including conservative-leaning newspapers(including the Arizona Republic newspaper, who has supported every single republican for the last 126 years that they have been in existence), that claim Trump is dangerous and have pledged support to Clinton.
Look I agree that Trump is not a brilliant candidate
Stop right there.
but given the choice is actually between him and Clinton, its a no-brainer.
Totally. She's way better than him considering her political experience, compared to him being a thin-skinned, easily irritable narcissist.
Personally I've always liked the idea of a political outsider coming in to make some changes, but not a political outsider with Narcissistic Personality Disorder and a complete lack of empathy, sympathy, or any other acceptable normal human emotional function.
She's already been by far the most corrupt, self-serving, warmongering, lying-under-oathing, Secretary of State the US has ever had.
She hasn't been charged with corruption. Self-Serving? No clear evidence for that. Warmongering? I wouldn't say warmongering, but she did support the Iraq war, which was a mistake. Lying under oath? The determination of that is still not concrete, but she hasn't been charged with perjury as of this writing, so that's so far only an assumption talked up by right-wing media.
Thanks to the blatantly sold-out media and most Americans desire to beleive everything they hear along with a complete complacency to do any actual fact-checking for themselves
I believe you must be mistaken. There have been countless fact-checking articles done on the current presidential campaign, by numerous publications. So much so that Trump has specifically banned a few from receiving press badges for his campaign. All because he doesn't like his "Facts" being checked and shown as obvious lies.
they beleive these ridiculuos stereotypes, such as Trump being the warmonger of the two, contrary to everything that he's said
So you don't believe the threats of using nukes against ISIS isn't warmongering? He claimed that we should have bombed the Iraqi oilfields, and stated that it wouldn't be a problem because government didn't exist anymore in Iraq. He also said that he'd stop Iran's nuclear program with any and all means necessary. He has stated that he'd make preemptive strikes on north korea, as well.
She even admitted last night that she voted for every war
Re:Questions to Hillary's fans (Score:4, Insightful)
When did you stop beating your wife?
Re: (Score:3)
Anyone interested in answers or policies has made up his mind long ago.
The ones such debates are aimed at are those who don't have a clue about or care a fig for policy issues but will go with whoever comes off as the most dominant, competent, knowledgeable, self-assured.
One quote from a voter inanother presidential election years ago sticks in my mind: "I just turn off the sound and watch their body language".
That's a big part of what this debate is all about, Ok? And both candidates know i
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
That women give birth is as unfair as gravity, which keeps us from realizing our dream of flying. But it is not wrong to acknowledge it. The point was — and remains — that this biology is inconvenient. Why is acknowledging the inconvenience "sexist"? Can a true statement ever be unfair? How about these:
Are these two racist and se
Almost exactly reflect voting preference (Score:5, Interesting)
Back in July, Slashdot did a poll that said 33% of slashdotters were in favor of Hillary, and 21% were pro Trump.
The current vote seems directly in line with that earlier pole, with a slight correction for the lack of Johnson as an option. Currently the numbers are 31% Hillary, 16% Trump.
People are voting for who they like, not who won the debate. (unless the numbers change as today goes on). Which means no one clearly won the debate.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You're incorrectly conflating the actual question (who people think won the debate) with who people would vote for.
I think Hillary won the debate (hardly surprising considering it was an obvious setup, I mean Lester Holtz was a joke). But there's no way I'd want that bitch in office.
Re: (Score:2)
> The entire point of his post was to bring forward the hypothesis that these polls won't explain who "won" the debate because people will believe their candidate won.
Well I guess I for one disprove his hypothesis then.
Nah, not for me anyway (Score:2)
I am not voting for Hillary but believe she "won" the debate. Trump was beat before he started by the Main Stream Media. He could not be mean because Hillary was sick, if he attacked her he was a bully/anti-woman. That free pass gave Hillary free reign to attack Donald and he didn't do bad defending but was defending most of the time. The questions were rigged to help Hillary as well. Not a single question on the Clinton Foundation, Benghazi, her private Email server, lying about having classified mail
Re:Almost exactly reflect voting preference (Score:5, Funny)
I think we all knew from the start that Goatse is Trump's main squeeze.
Re: (Score:2)
The way I would've worded the same poll (Score:4, Interesting)
After 7.5 years of dissent being racist, do you wish it to become:
Re: (Score:2)
Trump won according to polls, here's why (Score:5, Insightful)
Trump was better earlier, then it evened out and at times Hillary was better.
I would have called it a rough tie. But the important thing to remember is - how many people watched the whole thing? I would wager not a lot. So Trump doing better earlier probably means he won with the general populace...
This is borne out by polls taken immediately after showing that Trump actually won the debate [dailymail.co.uk], by a pretty large margin.
The CNN poll being an outlier is just an illustration of how the media is rigged strongly in favor of Hillary. I was going to vote for Johnson but I think an important part of this election is to consider just who the press will actually watch closely and call out anything wrong - they are going to do that constantly with Trump, and very little to not at all with Clinton. A representative democracy needs a functioning press and the unfortunate reality of the times is that the press is so Democratic, you have to have a Republican president if you want issues widely discussed in the news. You heard about war protests all the time under Bush, not at all under Obama despite drone strikes on civilians that would have had the press howling under Bush.
Whole thing, not "at all" (Score:4, Informative)
You're going to lose that wager. Early Neilson ratings are showing the debate broke the all-time record for viewers.
Yes, that's people who "tuned in" - that is watched it at all. I agree that was very high.
I'm saying a lot of people "tuned out" after the first half hour or so, I saw a ton of people on social media saying exactly that. They got tired after a while, both voices are irritating. Even if they didn't turn it off, they were not really watching with full attention after that point. The Neilson ratings say anything about that.
Hillary may technically have "won on points" but if you read the link I posted (not from a conservative source either) it shows Trump actually won massively among watchers. So the only way that happened is if people were not paying attention later in the debate.
Re: (Score:3)
The "Daily Mail" is as reactionary, fearmongering source you can possibly find. It is by no measure "liberal" or even "neutral."
Re: (Score:2)
if you read the link I posted (not from a conservative source either) it shows Trump actually won massively among watchers.
Daily Mail is a British tabloids newspaper posting a bunch of online polls that can be easily manipulated. I'd wait until phone polls come out to get a better idea of what the general population thinks.
Re: (Score:2)
Jesus, read my WHOLE POST. I said they may well have left it on but were not really watching... I explained that that had to be the case because of the poll results.
Is it really so hard for people here to comprehend words now??? I mean I literally spelled it out for you.
Re: (Score:2)
So you're literally jumping to conclusions you can't support, but insist they must be the case because that supports your desired world view of Trump winning despite spending 90 minutes looking like an incompetent jackass.
As a member of the non-ruling class... (Score:3, Insightful)
I feel that we have all lost.
"if they didn't vote for a lizard," said Ford, "the wrong lizard might get in"
I don't know who won but... (Score:2)
We're Screwed (Score:2)
I'm only 340 lbs. and I usually sit at my desk, when I'm not out walking.
We're all screwed either way.
Their arguments won't make a difference. (Score:2)
Nope, it was all about sweating under TV lights and a 5 o'clock shadow.
Re: (Score:2)
At least Nixon didn't have the sniffles.
I'm trying to look at this objectively (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't trust either candidate. I think they both lie all of the time. I had a few eye-rolls from Hillary last night, but mostly because I expect more out of her.
Okay, let's be honest here. I am not unbiased. As much as I detest her, I hope Hillary wins. I hate Hillary and believe she is corrupt, but I think trump is even more dishonest and corrupt and he appears to know no bounds. He's a loose cannon. I fully expect him - if he wins - to start taking advantage of the system as he has bragged about doing so many times before.
We saw it during the debates.
CLINTON: Third, we don't know all of his business dealings, but we have been told through investigative reporting that he owes about $650 million to Wall Street and foreign banks. Or maybe he doesn't want the American people, all of you watching tonight, to know that he's paid nothing in federal taxes, because the only years that anybody's ever seen were a couple of years when he had to turn them over to state authorities when he was trying to get a casino license, and they showed he didn't pay any federal income tax.
TRUMP: That makes me smart.
Okay, well that does make him smart for taking advantage of the system. I would do the same if I were in that position. Why should I pay taxes if I can find a way to get out of them?
What bothers me is that instead of wanting to eliminate these advantages which unfairly favor some people he embraces them.
I have to admit, I like some of the things trump says. I agree with some of his talking points. I just do not trust him at all. Not that I trust Clinton either, but at least I am fairly confident that she will try to work with the system and put on a good show. I fully expect trump to blatantly act in his own interests despite it obviously being detrimental to the American people.
This is my bias and it's interesting because at times I find myself trying to defend Hillary when her words or actions are really indefensible. I have to take a step back and judge her on her own merits as opposed to thinking at least she's not trump.
I still hope I don't vote for Clinton, but my state is turning into a horse race and it might be close. If trump has a chance at winning here, I will vote Clinton. If I'm confident he won't win, I'm voting third party because there is nothing to be gained by adding "Me Too" to Clinton's victory.
To boil it down as simply as possible, they're both liars and are very corrupt, but at leas Clinton can find Syria on a map.
Re: (Score:2)
Dammit!
Mod this comment up. I had forgotten to login in when I posted it.
I really wonder about this debate thing. Both seem to be playing to their audience and that's all well and good, but are they actually winning anyone over or just strengthening their bases?
Then again, there are enough people in polls that say they're undecided. How can you not be decided at this point? It's not like you're trying to decide between chocolate cake and lemon meringue pie.
Re: (Score:2)
Another good point about "undecided" voters, but why not stay logged in all the time? If you're just being paranoid, I'm sorry to report the NSA knows when you are sleeping, too.
Re: (Score:2)
Of course she can find Syria on the map, she knows where to send the weapons
Re: (Score:2)
If they are both corrupt liars, then send a message: Don't vote for either. There are more than two people on the ballot. You can write a name in. The only way Clinton or Trump gets elected is if people vote FOR them.
Don't fall into the trap. Vote for someone else. Anyone else.
Re: (Score:2)
The the corrupt liar who could start an unnecessary nuclear war, start interning religious groups or suspend democracy (such as it is) might win.
Re: (Score:2)
Which one is that? Would you rather I beat you with a rake or a shovel? The correct answer is neither.
When both options are bad... pick option 3. Don't be a part of the problem.
Re: (Score:2)
What do you mean? A bow rake or a leaf rake?
Re: (Score:2)
As a Canadian I'm not allowed to vote.
The premise of the question is that I'm going to get beaten and I have to live with that. The premise of the election is a choice between Trump and Clinton. Both are bad, but I believe one is much worse then the other. If you don't live a swing state, feel free to vote for a 3rd party, but if Trump wins there may not be a next time to try and get better choices.
Re: (Score:2)
Don't fall into the trap. Vote for someone else. Anyone else.
It's a trap that is hard-coded into the Constitution. The founders understood the risks of fractious political parties, but they wanted a system that would give the president a "mandate" to act strongly when emergencies required it. They had all lived through such an emergency and all agreed that the strong leadership of General Washington had been essential to victory. (Washington could have become king if he had wanted to.)
Their solution was a winner-take-all mechanism for selecting presidents. Not their
Re: (Score:2)
The founding fathers actually warned us against creating political parties. They saw the trap, told us about it, and we fell into it anyway.
Re: (Score:3)
I think that any winner-take-all system (including instant run-off) is going to destroy a party's ideology, because for every "normal" issue the voters are going to be distributed on a bell curve. Actually, it is possible to imagine 3D or higher issues, but that's not how it works in practice as the elements and dimensions are reduced to the minimum in search of clarity (or suitability for public debate?). Black-and-white binary issues are quite rare in the real world.
Assume that you start with two politici
Re: (Score:3)
I'm still waiting for Trump to hold a press conference and say "Just kidding! It's been fun, but I don't want to actually be president! Good luck!".
I do agree that a lot of our problems today stem from the federal government over reaching into issues that are best left to individual states and local municipalities to adjudicate. Why is someone from Washington dictating kindergarten curriculum and teaching methods? Why does Washington care if my health insurance is worth 'too much'? The list goes on and on a
Re: (Score:2)
Most insightful analysis I could find, but the lack of "funny" comments was disappointing. Have we all lost our senses of humor? The debate was certainly a target-rich environment for jokes.
I want to expand on one of your points and introduce one new one. The old point is whether it is "smart" to avoid paying taxes and the new one is branching from your broad attribution of "they're both liars" to consider the kinds of lies and liars.
Trump can claim that he didn't actually say he is not paying taxes, but he
Re: (Score:2)
Well considering a court will never get to decide whether or not Hillary broke federal law or just had "poor judgment" in your words or "extremely careless" in Comey's words. Deciding not to prosecute isn't the same as not having broken the law. It doesn't take a lawyer to know that people don't destroy phones and use bleach bit to keep wedding emails out of the public eye.
Re: (Score:2)
You are right. Trump is accused of being unethical in business practices and probably guilty of several tax statues and possibly rape or sexual assault.
Clinton in the meantime has been accused of breaking federal criminal law, and despite the evidence will never see a trial because of prosecutorial discretion from other members of her political party. She has also defended an adulterer, perjurer, and also possible rapist/sexual assaulter...
By: It Was A Tie (Score:2)
I am not a US citizen (Score:2)
Every path ends in failure (Score:5, Interesting)
Until Gary Johnson and Jill Stein are right up on the stage next to these two idiots, this is just a shitshow.
As of right now, we as a country are losing this presidential race. No matter who wins, we lose.
Re:Every path ends in failure (Score:4, Insightful)
2 + 2 idiots does not other than a shitshow make.
It was not a tie. (Score:2)
Lester Holt's tie was clearly better than Trump's blue monstrosity, but everybody knows that winners don't tie.
Re: (Score:2)
If I ever got a mod point...
The only way to win... (Score:2)
...is not to play. The only winners were the people who didn't bother to watch it and used their time doing something productive (cooking a nice meal, having sex with their partner (or someone else's partner), coding, folding laundry, or pretty much anything else).
Was there supposed to be a question? (Score:3)
Trump dissolved into a snivelling, incoherent mannerless, classless ass, breaking all the rules (as he has done his whole life), interrupting Clinton when it was her time to talk (which she did not do), running way over his time, and defending every point at great length... clearly taking no responsibility for anything he's ever done (not renting to Blacks? Settled without admitting wrongdoing. Names he calls women? They deserved it.)
Meanwhile, Clinton apologized for the email server, and took full responsibility. Trump takes no responsibility for everything, which seems right, since he *is* irresponsible. He'd start a war over being taunted? Whet is, this, 2nd grade recess?
Trump won? In what bad dystopian movie are you living?
mark
Re: (Score:2)
Don't get overconfident. It might be the dystopian movie where the evil mastermind is luring us to our fate... Trump might be holding his fire. Well, he's not that smart, but his campaign manager seems to be.
It's the last debate that will be closest to the election, and many American voters seem to have all the attention span and long-term memory of fruit flies.
Interesting video... (Score:2)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com] I've read that she almost never touches her face in past public appearances. There is some interesting timing to some of it...
Rigged poll (Score:2)
It was Cowboy Neal, obviously.
Re:No difference (Score:4, Insightful)
The winner would have been Johnson, which is why he wasn't invited.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:No difference (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:No difference (Score:4, Insightful)
People don't even realize that Gary Johnson is the kind of man who will own up to mistakes and admit when he is proven wrong. They just don't think that is even possible in politics.
If they actually took in more than the 2 second sounds bites the Ds and Rs feed them, maybe they would gain a bit of knowledge.
Re: (Score:2)
After his take on global warming, I wrote him off. Deal breaker for me.
Re: (Score:3)
My real issue is that he is neither insane nor corrupt.
Yep. That's the bar I'm using in this election too so Gary Johnson gets my vote. I would have picked Sanders over Trump if he would have made it. Even though I disagree with most of Sanders platform and I don't think he has a clue how to pay for what he wants, I think his heart was in the right place and he really did want to help. I can't in good conscience vote for either Trump or Clinton.
Re: (Score:2)
People don't even realize that Gary Johnson is the kind of man who will own up to mistakes and admit when he is proven wrong. They just don't think that is even possible in politics.
Dunning Kruger Effect [wikipedia.org] at work. You see the key to getting better at something is being able to accurately assess your competency. This leads to self improvement. The funny thing is assessing your own competency requires a certain level of meta cognition. Those who don't have this are more inclined to not know how stupid they really are and believe they are highly superior compared to others. Then they go about projecting said superiority and the consumers of said projection also stricken with the Dunn
Re: No difference (Score:2)
Some of what you say it's incorrect. I've read the Climate Gate emails and I am convinced global warming isn't real. That said I would never vote for Johnson.
Re: No difference (Score:4, Insightful)
To be fair Clinton has an advantage when it comes to knowing the names of foreign leaders given she signed so many of their checks as foreign contributions were laundered through the Clinton Foundation.
ZING
It's funny cause it's true.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Perhaps the day dreamers are right, perhaps the prophets of doom are right. Either way it does not hurt to be cautious.
Re: (Score:2)
Who cares, they're both terrible and anyone voting for either one is insane and/or deluded.
"it was a tie" seems like the correct choice here. A tie for apathy in our selection, a tie for absolute disgust with the mechanics that allowed these two floaters to arise to the surface, a tie for who is most likely going to do something that hurts me soonest, a tie between whose voice I most wish to never hear again.
There should be a guaranteed third choice: veto. The candidates selection are the property of powe
Re: (Score:3)
Liar Satan Drumpf. He was named after his father.
I always suspected Hillary was a man...