• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Presidential Debate #2 |Washington University| Grab me right in the Ken Bone

Who won?


Results are only viewable after voting.
Status
Not open for further replies.
This is the most heated US election I've ever witnessed. I think the voter turn out will be huge. In other words. As many folks that can vote will vote.

You missed my edit, I guess, but earlier you said this 'Silent Majority' will help Trump win, but now you're saying they won't? I'm not following you.
 
It's the silent (majority?) electorate America has to worry about.

That's what done the UK when it came to Brexit. How many people are going to vote for Trump that have never voted before? Are we talking big numbers?

That's what Farage did, prayed on the weak, vulnerable and those with little to no further education and there were enough new voters like that he was able to rabble rouse to get it over the line.

Some of the lines that Farage cane out with during our televised debates could have been found in the Trump handbook.

Basically, don't get complacent America. That's where we went wrong :(
 
It's the silent (majority?) electorate America has to worry about.

That's what done the UK when it came to Brexit. How many people are going to vote for Trump that have never voted before? Are we talking big numbers?

That's what Farage did, prayed on the weak, vulnerable and those with little to no further education and there were enough new voters like that he was able to rabble rouse to get it over the line.

Some of the lines that Farage cane out with during our televised debates could have been found in the Trump handbook.

Basically, don't get complacent America. That's where we went wrong :(
Polls showed leave and remain to be pretty even with leave having a slight edge.

Polls are showing with a clinton advantage in particular on a state by state level
 
It's the silent (majority?) electorate America has to worry about.

That's what done the UK when it came to Brexit. How many people are going to vote for Trump that have never voted before? Are we talking big numbers?

That's what Farage did, prayed on the weak, vulnerable and those with little to no further education and there were enough new voters like that he was able to rabble rouse to get it over the line.

Some of the lines that Farage cane out with during our televised debates could have been found in the Trump handbook.

Basically, don't get complacent America. That's where we went wrong :(

Trump supporters aren't shy about voicing support. Honestly the greater worry is complacent liberals not voting or "voting their conscience"
 
It's the silent (majority?) electorate America has to worry about.

That's what done the UK when it came to Brexit. How many people are going to vote for Trump that have never voted before? Are we talking big numbers?

That's what Farage did, prayed on the weak, vulnerable and those with little to no further education and there were enough new voters like that he was able to rabble rouse to get it over the line.

Some of the lines that Farage cane out with during our televised debates could have been found in the Trump handbook.

Basically, don't get complacent America. That's where we went wrong :(

Oh, The Silent Majority, the silent boogeyman since the 1970s. People said the same thing about Romney, and this election is echoing 2012 in a lot of ways people don't understand. Romney never tanked like Trump (has twice), but people following electorate polling saw that Obama was almost always the favorite to win. The Silent Majority didn't help a vanilla ass candidate like Romney, why are they going to come out and vote for the most polarizing candidate in living memory? Do you think the Silent Majority is more terrified of vagina than they are of a black man or something

Also, is there really any kind of real evidence or belief to support that 'complacency' had a real effect in Brexit? Or is this just something everyone wants to believe to downplay the fact that a lot of people wanted (or thought they wanted) the Leave option?
 

ISOM

Member
This is the most heated US election I've ever witnessed. I think the voter turn out will be huge. In other words. As many folks that can vote will vote.

A higher voter turnout works in Clinton's favor more than Trump's because of how the electoral college is set up.
 

benjipwns

Banned
Clinton: "It’s just awfully good that someone with the temperament of Donald Trump is not in charge of the law in our country"

Trump: "Because you’d be in jail"


So this is how despots happen. This is a man who threatens to jail his political opponent
On the plus side, Hillary once again affirmed her support for government suppression of the press publishing statements critical of elected politicians, so her Supreme Court appointments will certainly help a Future Trump keep them in jail.
 

Llyrwenne

Unconfirmed Member
Just woke up after shutting down the debate halfway through because I couldn't handle it. It's profoundly sad and disturbing that it got this far. We're far below rock bottom here. It is extremely concerning that this is where we are now and that more than 30% of Americans will likely still vote for the obviously unqualified, misogynistic, racist and bigoted clown-child.

When confronted about the tapes he turned it into a rant about ISIS, which can basically be construed as "ISIS can just behead people, why can't I sexually assault women?".

When asked about Islamophobia and how he will combat it, he completely missed the point and went on to rant about how Muslims are the problem and how he's the only one who says radical ISLAMIC tera and how he'll do EXTREME VETTING at the border.

He said live on television that he will jail his political opponent.

When asked about healthcare and how to fix it, he again went on a rant about Obamacare and how it should be repealed and replaced by 'something' without actually detailing what that something would be - he did this after his opponent pointed out that this was what he was going to say.

When pressed by the moderators to answer the damn question he was asked he said it was unfair and 'it's three against one here'.

Etc. Etc.

A massive number of people are still going to vote for this guy and that should concern everyone, even if he does get crushed. Sure, 'Clinton will win' and 'this will never happen again' etc., but I don't think you can blame me for being very concerned with what's happening here and with the damage he has already done. This man should have not even made it past the primary process. :/
 

Auctopus

Member
Wish people would stop talking about Brexit already in relation to the election. That and the South Park crap, probably two of the most annoying things people say when talking about the election.

It's a vote between two things. In that regard and in relation to the examples being used, it's relevant.
 
On the plus side, Hillary once again affirmed her support for government suppression of the press publishing statements critical of elected politicians, so her Supreme Court appointments will certainly help a Future Trump keep them in jail.

What are you referring to, or is this a troll. I can never really tell with most of your posts.


Lol, that's good. Luckily, Hillary is the Final Girl, so her chances of survival are high.
 

Ihyll

Junior Member
The silent majority is no longer racist white people waiting in the shadows to vote for whatever racist Republican is on the ballot

The silent majority is now minorities and single women and educated young people.
 

Dishwalla

Banned
It's a vote between two things. In that regard and in relation to the examples being used, it's relevant.

If you mean the South Park thing, it's lazy. It's a sure fire sign that you're not thinking for yourself and/or are not paying attention. There's more to life than silly cartoons.
 

Nipo

Member
It's the silent (majority?) electorate America has to worry about.

That's what done the UK when it came to Brexit. How many people are going to vote for Trump that have never voted before? Are we talking big numbers?

That's what Farage did, prayed on the weak, vulnerable and those with little to no further education and there were enough new voters like that he was able to rabble rouse to get it over the line.

Some of the lines that Farage cane out with during our televised debates could have been found in the Trump handbook.

Basically, don't get complacent America. That's where we went wrong :(

Doesn't matter as much in the US due to the electoral college. Popular vote doesn't decide the winner and really votes only matter in 5-6 states.
 

Auctopus

Member
I'm sorry, and I know there's not a kind way to say this so I will apologize in advance even though I'm sure it won't help, this is pretty much pure ignorance.

That's okay, I forgive you.

If you mean the South Park thing, it's lazy. It's a sure fire sign that you're not thinking for yourself and/or are not paying attention. There's more to life than silly cartoons.

I'm not talking about the South Park thing.
 
The silent majority is no longer racist white people waiting in the shadows to vote for whatever racist Republican is on the ballot

The silent majority is now minorities and single women and educated young people.

Actually, that's not the silent majority. The actual truth is there's not a silent majority. There's never been one, at least not one that there's been real proof of. It's always been a term that's used to energize the GOP base, to make them seem special. I mean, sure, there are people who vote who don't participate in polls, but there's never been a point in modern elections where there's been such a significant discrepancy that it made a major difference in the outcome. Why anyone thinks it'll happen now, for a candidate who has alienated almost every demographic outside one fairly major one, is beyond me.
 

benjipwns

Banned
The case was about the federal government suppressing ads for and airings of Hillary: The Movie because the owner wasn't favored by the government. The Supreme Court properly struck down the unconstitutional restrictions, Hillary has regularly stated she wants it reversed.
 
The case was about the federal government suppressing ads for and airings of Hillary: The Movie because the owner wasn't favored by the government. The Supreme Court properly struck down the unconstitutional restrictions, Hillary has regularly stated she wants it reversed.

I know you are trolling, but anyway Citizens United was about campaign spending by corporations. The ruling effectively gave corporations First Amendment rights, which isn't a good thing.
 

Mr. Sam

Member
Also, is there really any kind of real evidence or belief to support that 'complacency' had a real effect in Brexit?

Not really. Turnout was about as expected. Young people (~75% of whom voted for Remain) didn't vote nearly as much as the elderly but they wouldn't have tipped the scales the other way even if they'd voted en masse for Remain.
 

benjipwns

Banned
I know you are trolling, but anyway Citizens United was about campaign spending by corporations. The ruling effectively gave corporations First Amendment rights, which isn't a good thing.
Good to know you "know" the mind of others.

Citizens United wanted to air ads for and have airings of the movie Hillary: The Movie, the position of the FEC was not only could the government suppress these, but that it could ban books, blogs and block things on stuff like Kindles. All for a single sentence critical of a politician.

Corporations were always allowed unlimited campaign spending except the government retained authority over which corporations were allowed unlimited spending. A blatant violation of the First Amendment, which says "no law restricting the freedom of the press." Not "except where decided void by the executive branch." The ruling in Citizens United said that all corporations are equal in this regard, properly protecting press rights that McCain-Feingold violated.
 
Good to know you "know" the mind of others.

Citizens United wanted to air ads for and have airings of the movie Hillary: The Movie, the position of the FEC was not only could the government suppress these, but that it could ban books, blogs and block things on stuff like Kindles. All for a single sentence critical of a politician.

Corporations were always allowed unlimited campaign spending except the government retained authority over which corporations were allowed unlimited spending. A blatant violation of the First Amendment, which says "no law restricting the freedom of the press." Not "except where decided void by the executive branch." The ruling in Citizens United said that all corporations are equal in this regard, properly protecting press rights that McCain-Feingold violated.
We have tons of limits on freedom of speech and press where necessary for a functional society and government. An absolute freedom there is not what you want, there need to be limits. And limiting on corporation spending in political campaigns is a good one. A vast majority of the public agrees on this.
 

danm999

Member
The Brexit comparison is bad. Polling aggregates told us it was extremely close, and a lot of polling indicated a slight Leave win was coming.

Polling aggregates are not telling us the US Presidential election is close. Not to mention when you break down the US electoral college his chances look even more grim.

Yet some seem to be making the same error that led to the Brexit surprise (ignoring lots of polls), whilst simultaneously pointing to Brexit as proof some kind of similar upset is coming. It's baffling.
 

benjipwns

Banned
We have tons of limits on freedom of speech and press where necessary for a functional society and government. An absolute freedom there is not what you want, there need to be limits. And limiting on corporation spending in political campaigns is a good one.
I'd argue that the govenrment needing the power to suppress freedom of the press is the antithesis of a functional society.
 
I'd argue that the govenrment needing the power to suppress freedom of the press is the antithesis of a functional society.
78% of the public disagrees with you on that in this case. It's also not about suppressing freedom of press, but the funds that are used for it. You can still air the same message, that is not being suppressed.
 
In all honesty the only question trump definitively 'won' on was the last one. Saying something positive about the opponent. Clinton turned it into something else (true politician style) and went on and on, maximising her time limit. Trump was one and done. Short a sweet.
 

benjipwns

Banned
78% of the public disagrees with you on that in this case.
Good thing we have laws that protect the rights of minorities then huh.

In all honesty the only question trump definitively 'won' on was the last one. Saying something positive about the opponent. Clinton turned it into something else (true politician style) and went on and on, maximising her time limit. Trump was one and done. Short a sweet.
She should have forced him to go first because it was ambiguous who was supposed to go first.

Second answer always wins that question, even for somebody like Trump. Because they know how far the other person went and just have to get past it.
 
In all honesty the only question trump definitively 'won' on was the last one. Saying something positive about the opponent. Clinton turned it into something else (true politician style) and went on and on, maximising her time limit. Trump was one and done. Short a sweet.
Though it totally flies in the face of attacking her on stamina, which he was going on about for so long.
 

benjipwns

Banned
This has nothing to do with minorities, but with funding of political messages. You can still air the message, but the funding is the issue.
No, the FEC's position was that you couldn't air the message because it costs money to publish.

For sure. Won't SOMEONE think of the massive, incredibly wealthy corporations?
No, they were the ones already protected. The multi-billion dollar The New York Times Company, News Corp and Sheinhardt Wig Company were all free to spend as much as they wanted to publish all sorts of political opinions. A small non-profit like Citizens United or a local union was not.
 
In all honesty the only question trump definitively 'won' on was the last one. Saying something positive about the opponent. Clinton turned it into something else (true politician style) and went on and on, maximising her time limit. Trump was one and done. Short a sweet.

But he praised her for never quitting, never giving up, when he's previously said she was unfit to be President, and didn't have the stamina to do the job. Was it really a good answer, or did it betray Trump's assessment of Clinton through the campaign, or betray his own beliefs?
 
I'd argue that the govenrment needing the power to suppress freedom of the press is the antithesis of a functional society.

If we were talking about actual people that would be one thing. The Constitution guarantees the rights for all citizens. Corporations are not and should not be regarded as citizens, people, or anything of the like and should not have the same protections and guarantees as actual people.
 

benjipwns

Banned
Because of the way it was funded. If an individual would have paid for it, it would have been fine.
If we were talking about actual people that would be one thing. The Constitution guarantees the rights for all citizens. Corporations are not and should not be regarded as citizens, people, or anything of the like and should not have the same protections and guarantees as actual people.
This is missing the fucking point. The point is the double standard applied by the law. Some corporations were allowed to publish political opinions and others were not. The First Amendment doesn't apply to only favored corporations, it applies to all because there is no reasonable interpretation of it that says it applies to none.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom