The Current Events, News, and Politics Thread
09-27-2016, 08:26 AM
#6743
I thought Trump did well in the beginning but failed in the latter half. He missed some golden opportunities to lay the smack down. Killary was well prepared for this debate. She came off better polished and sounded believeable until you look into her content. More and more lies but she presents her lies better than Trump's ramblings.
Reply
0
0
09-27-2016, 08:55 AM
#6744
I refuse to give either one of those two hacks my vote, and last night just further cemented that resolve.
There is a third choice; and the two men that represent that choice are reasonable human beings that are orders of magnitude more qualified than the two jokers on stage.
#JohnsonWeld
#LetGaryDebate
There is a third choice; and the two men that represent that choice are reasonable human beings that are orders of magnitude more qualified than the two jokers on stage.
#JohnsonWeld
#LetGaryDebate
Reply
0
0
09-27-2016, 09:16 AM
#6745
Elite Member
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: OKC, OK
Posts: 3,693
Total Cats: 222
I didn't want to watch but felt obligated.
They are both hacks. He's an idiot, she's a lying robot.
We are screwed since the "non-profit nonpartisan" debate commitee won't let Gary Johnson debate.
They are both hacks. He's an idiot, she's a lying robot.
We are screwed since the "non-profit nonpartisan" debate commitee won't let Gary Johnson debate.
Reply
0
0
09-27-2016, 09:37 AM
#6748
Between the two professional liars who are the only "viable" candidates, and the fact that I'm in just about the furthest thing from a swing state, I'm having a hard time taking seriously the argument that my vote counts and that I should exercise my right to vote regardless.
The only things that still gets me to the voting booth are local elections that (1) might actually come down to a handful of votes, and (2) the results of which might have a dramatic influence in my actual day to day life.
The only things that still gets me to the voting booth are local elections that (1) might actually come down to a handful of votes, and (2) the results of which might have a dramatic influence in my actual day to day life.
Reply
0
0
09-27-2016, 10:16 AM
#6752
Boost Pope
iTrader: (8)
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Chicago. (The less-murder part.)
Posts: 33,020
Total Cats: 6,588
Do the votes of the majority make a functional difference in outcome when countered by an ignorant and tyrannical majority? Not really. One of the shortcomings of representative democracy...
But you can still control your own voice.
A vote for Trump is a vote for deprivation of liberty by way of expanded policing powers.
A vote for Hillary is a vote for deprivation of liberty by way of congressional and executive action.
A vote for Johnson is a vote for enhancement of individual liberty.
I'd think that you, of all people, would appreciate this distinction.
But you can still control your own voice.
A vote for Trump is a vote for deprivation of liberty by way of expanded policing powers.
A vote for Hillary is a vote for deprivation of liberty by way of congressional and executive action.
A vote for Johnson is a vote for enhancement of individual liberty.
I'd think that you, of all people, would appreciate this distinction.
Reply
0
0
09-27-2016, 10:41 AM
#6756
Moderator
iTrader: (12)
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Tampa, Florida
Posts: 20,650
Total Cats: 3,010
Debate observations: Hillary has received voice coaching between her debates with Sanders and last night. She was careful not to fall into the shrill, grating tone that often characterized her voice in the past. Her monologues were very scripted, practiced, stiff, and patronizing. The "my father was a seamster" bit was especially patronizing. Moreso the narrative she attempted to weave tying her father's work to Trump's business dealings. That was worth an eyeroll. I see that as an obvious play to the portion of her base that is overly emotional but has the reasoning skill of a 4th grader.
Trump was Trump. He was often impatient, not waiting his turn. His answers were unscripted and off the cuff. He was more respectful than I expected, usually referring to her as "Secretary Clinton" while she always referred to him as "Donald" and never "Mr. Trump" or anything formal. He repeated himself a few times, which seems to be common for him. He didn't appear as foolish as I expected.
The substantive parts of the debate that caught my attention were Trump's interest in reducing corporate taxes to levels on par with the rest of the developed world and Clinton's desire to increase them. I know lower corporate taxes yield growth. However, Trump's proposal to increase tariffs on foreign goods to match tariffs or VAT by other countries on our goods contains possible pitfalls. A tariff on foreign goods will drive up the cost of items for the American consumer, unless it is just a negotiating tool used to push other countries to reduce their tariffs against American goods. If this is the case, it could be a boon to American companies selling products overseas and domestic prices for imported goods will not increase. It will be interesting to see how that shakes out.
I have not yet read or listened to anyone else's take on the debates. I wanted to record my own thoughts before being influenced by others.
Reply
0
0
09-27-2016, 11:16 AM
#6758
I'm just looking forward to using "cyber" as a noun from now on.
Originally Posted by The Donald
So we have to get very, very tough on cyber and cyber warfare. It is a, it is a huge problem. I have a son. He's 10 years old. He has computers. He is so good with these computers, it's unbelievable. The security aspect of cyber is very, very tough. And maybe it's hardly doable. But I will say, we are not doing the job we should be doing, but that's true throughout our whole governmental society. We have so many things that we have to do better, Lester, and certainly cyber is one of them.
Reply
0
0
09-27-2016, 11:17 AM
#6759
Debate observations: Hillary has received voice coaching between her debates with Sanders and last night. She was careful not to fall into the shrill, grating tone that often characterized her voice in the past. Her monologues were very scripted, practiced, stiff, and patronizing. The "my father was a seamster" bit was especially patronizing. Moreso the narrative she attempted to weave tying her father's work to Trump's business dealings. That was worth an eyeroll. I see that as an obvious play to the portion of her base that is overly emotional but has the reasoning skill of a 4th grader.
I'm guessing there's a lot of those 28 million small business owners who related 100% to her point without any eyeroll.
Trump was Trump. He was often impatient, not waiting his turn. His answers were unscripted and off the cuff. He was more respectful than I expected, usually referring to her as "Secretary Clinton" while she always referred to him as "Donald" and never "Mr. Trump" or anything formal. He repeated himself a few times, which seems to be common for him. He didn't appear as foolish as I expected.
The substantive parts of the debate that caught my attention were Trump's interest in reducing corporate taxes to levels on par with the rest of the developed world and Clinton's desire to increase them. I know lower corporate taxes yield growth. However, Trump's proposal to increase tariffs on foreign goods to match tariffs or VAT by other countries on our goods contains possible pitfalls. A tariff on foreign goods will drive up the cost of items for the American consumer, unless it is just a negotiating tool used to push other countries to reduce their tariffs against American goods. If this is the case, it could be a boon to American companies selling products overseas and domestic prices for imported goods will not increase. It will be interesting to see how that shakes out.
Personally I didn't see anything substantive, from either candidate, that I hadn't seen earlier.
My 2 cents...
Reply
0
0
