SSGMUN10000
Connoisseur Of Tedium
My wife was telling me K-Bone was on CNN in this morning wearing the same red sweater on. Anyone catch the segment?
-
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
- Thread starter Paskil
- Start date
- Status
DontBeThatGuy
Member
No one got it right, like I said, and the person running for President acknowledging the mistakes of the past, and acknowledging the issues facing black america head on, without resorting to law and order and stop and frisk measurements is a Clinton. She also has the support of black leaders and the majority of the black voting population.
Stop peddling bullshit about "not deserving of their votes". That's what offensive, as if they don't know what they're actually doing.
Stop peddling bullshit about "not deserving of their votes". That's what offensive, as if they don't know what they're actually doing.
Goddamn, Warren Buffet responds to Trump's claims that he also used carryforward to avoid paying federal income taxes.
https://twitter.com/carlquintanilla/status/785514714839351296
Holy shit....I'd vote for Warren....
It's annoying how Trump just keeps spewing nonsense debate after debate. Adding a live fact checker to the debates would really help.Goddamn, Warren Buffet responds to Trump's claims that he also used carryforward to avoid paying federal income taxes.
https://twitter.com/carlquintanilla/status/785514714839351296
kame-sennin
Member
'We'. 'As if we don't know what we're actually doing'. And no, as a black man, Clinton does not deserve my vote.
Neither does Trump, put down the pitch forks you maniacs.
But I'm glad that you see the discussion of black genocide as "peddling bullshit". Democrats love to use blacks to defend their candidates, but when that doesn't work, they show their true colors real quick.
xXxDieselxXx
Member
I guess I'm the minority here:
IMHO:
Debate #1: Clear winner = Hillary
Debate #2: Clear winner = Trump
IMHO:
Debate #1: Clear winner = Hillary
Debate #2: Clear winner = Trump
Manmademan
Member
Bull.
http://www.nbcnews.com/news/nbcblk/analysis-black-leaders-supported-clinton-s-crime-bill-n552961
The bill had the support of all but 11 members of the black caucus, and Rangel was on tape supporting the bill in principle, even if he didn't vote for it publicly.
In addition to congressmen, dozens of black pastors and mayors backed that bill and pushed for it.
Trying to paint the bill as a racist bill the clintons forced on black congressmen is false. MANY people of all races supported that, because crime in the late 80s and early 90s was at catastrophic levels.
there were 86 murders in Washington DC in 2015. In 1991 that number was 482.
http://www.nbcnews.com/news/nbcblk/analysis-black-leaders-supported-clinton-s-crime-bill-n552961
NYC had about 340 Killings in 2015. In 1990 that number was 2,245.
http://www.nytimes.com/1991/04/23/n...a-record-while-other-crimes-fell-in-1990.html
Can you imagine walking out of your door into a neighborhood where the murder rate just quintupled from what it is today? Because that's what people were living in.
GTFO of here with that noise. EVERYONE was desperate to do anything they could to drop those numbers. The bill wasn't perfect and had some unforseen consequences, but trying to paint it as some racist piece of legislation forced on minorities is bullshit, flat out.
benjipwns
Banned
They'd have to stop and go back constantly. And then everyone would argue with the "fact checker" endlessly.
RPGCrazied
Member
You are.
No way Trump won, he lost, again. He came off to me as an unhinged crazy person who I hope never makes it 1 foot to the White House. Just who the fuck threatens their political opponents if they win over something the FBI said it was nothing illegal. And him going deep on Bill's scandal, gross. Plus last I checked he isn't running for President.
Stumpokapow
listen to the mad man
I watched with a room full of politically connected Democrats (some in academic political science, some in party politics; I should say that I'm not a US citizen and can't vote and so am not a Democrat) and the consensus was that the first debate was a Hillary win and the second was a draw. We were all surprised when CNN polls and undecided voter focus groups post-debate suggested Hillary decisively won.
Gotta ponder if after having been name dropped during the debate Buffett wouldn't be tempted. Or Cuban.
kavanf1
Member
No, he definitely lost by any objective measure, despite holding it together better than he did in the first debate. By Trump's standards he did well by deflecting everything. My only irritation is that he didn't lose as badly as he deserved to.
DontBeThatGuy
Member
You can feel anyway you like but the majority feels differently, and that's the truth, and thank the fuck for that.
kame-sennin
Member
That's incredibly fucked up to hear about John Lewis. But as I said, blacks being in favor of it does not change the fact that the law is racist. You can see in the article from 94 that people already knew the death penalty was applied disproportionately. To claim that people only realized mass incarceration was a problem in the last few years is disingenuous.
In what way was Trump the "clear winner"? Were you actually paying attention to what they were saying?
Snowman Prophet of Doom
Member
90+% of black voters support the Dems, and the remainder mostly support the Republicans. You are free to take any view you wish - I basically agree that neither side is great, though I would say the tolerance of corporate greed and malfeasance is the far greater unifying sin - but the reality is your perceptions are not shared by most people of color, even those privy to the same level of knowledge.
metalslimer
Member
My initial assessment was slight Hilary win but going back that tape answer was so horrific the gender gap was exposed.
benjipwns
Banned
What does that have to do with the presidential "debates"?
If you directly contradict the foreign policy that your running-mate laid down in the previous week and say that you didn't even talk to him about it, I don't see how you could have won.
Pai Pai Master
Banned
TrumPolitik: Feelings, not facts.
Atomic Playboy
Member
Trump finished stronger than Hillary, which affects perception. But the first 45 minutes he was simultaneously very low-energy and ranting like an unhinged lunatic on wild tangents that didn't even pretend to address the question being asked. Complaining about how the moderators are being unfair to you multiple times throughout the debate is not Presidential, it makes you look like a petulant toddler. If all you saw was the end, then Trump came out looking pretty good. Over the entire debate, though, he was completely batshit.
RPGCrazied
Member
This guy, lol
dynamitejim
Member
The major take away from the VP and second Presidential debates for me is this:
Gas lighting is extremely effective amongst a disturbingly large amount of people.
Gas lighting is extremely effective amongst a disturbingly large amount of people.
DontBeThatGuy
Member
Calling Trump the "clear winner" is one hell of a hot take.
InfiniteBento
Member
Not necessarily. More so dramatic.
Snowman Prophet of Doom
Member
I thought it was basically a draw in that Trump sounded a little more coherent, and neither candidate probably gained much ground from it, but anything but a decisive Trump win was, effectively, a loss.
benjipwns
Banned
I see you got the "how to secretly support Trump but sound like a leftist" packet too.
So you just torpedoed your own argument.
and moved your goal posts.
Like you always do.
CaviarMeths
Member
One of things I found weird that isn't getting talked about much is when Trump grilled Cooper on not asking Clinton about the emails. Cooper, annoyed, gestured to Raddatz and said they already did. They talked about the emails for like 5 minutes prior and Raddatz pressed Clinton with follow ups twice. Is Trump's memory just awful or was he not acknowledging her as a moderator?
King Tubby
Member
I thought debate 2 was a draw or slight Trump win. Perhaps that's relative to expectations - after the first debate and the recent headlines, I expected Trump to essentially get crushed (or crush himself). However I thought he had a plan and executed it, which was in and of itself surprising, in that he became a full-on attack dog on Hillary to keep the night from being completely focused on his own transgressions. Hillary did not always address his attacks or defend herself properly, and I think he hit on her on many weaknesses of her general public perception.
However, he needed to do more than that. He may have stopped the rash of GOP defections and kept the Republican base from entirely deserting him, but his campaign has not yet fully pulled out of its death spiral. Outside of calling Hillary corrupt and dropping some zingers he did absolutely nothing to reach beyond his support base. He had an awful demeanor and presence on that stage; it was the most menacing I've ever seen a candidate carry himself. It seemed clear he was boiling with rage for almost the entire night.
Trump also had several key moments that were terrible for him. He did not defend himself well at all for the tapes. "Locker room banter" is not a winning strategy here for anyone with ears, and he needed to be pressed fervently and repeatedly on the point before he squeezed out an insincere "no I didn't." His denial was like ripping off a band-aid when, if it were legitimate, it would have been boisterous and forceful. Trump is not a wilting flower. His constant pettiness and whining about the moderation did him no favors. His break with his own running mate was shocking. He condescended to minorities. In fact, he basically didn't engage with any of the audience in that town hall.
No, but they made the best compromise they thought they could to try to deal with the issues the community was dealing with. If you are holding these people to the standards of a revolutionary, almost everyone you can name who has held public office in the United States is going to fall short.
That said, I will say that it is disappointing that the Republican primary had more minority candidates than the Democratic primary this cycle. I understand why that is but it's still bizarre to me.
"In what world is it winning to:
-Continue to admit to not paying taxes
-Avoid giving any substantive answers
-Say "sexual assault is just words"
-Say he would jail his political opponents when he gains political power
-Project his issues onto others
-Behave like a petulant child
-Lie over 74%+ of the time
-Attempt to keep the topic focused on stump-speeching/deflecting from his scandals/lack of answering questions
etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc.
Hillary actually spent time answering questions with substance. She didn't stoop to his level."
Quoting myself from earlier. This doesn't even include how he never communicated with Pence on foreign policy.
All he did was try to appeal to his base. He needed to do more than that to even move the meter. He lost. And he lost horribly.
I agree that they shouldn't do "live" fact checking, as in after every statement. But imo telling the candidates that at 3 specific marks (every 30 mins, last one at the end), a counter will appear on screen and on set tallying the number of false statements for each candidates (just a number), the detail of the false statements being posted online on a neutral website.
They would also make clear to the candidates that the results are not there to be argued about, but to allow for the candidates to "correct the course".
That would have 2 effects:
- a warning that making false statements will have direct consequences, possibly dissuading them from lying too much
- by the end, viewers too lazy to do said research would have a clear idea of how "truthfull" each candidate was, and where to go to find explanations
Win-Win (except for pathological liars like Trump).
The current status quo of either -0- fact checking, or letting candidates using precious air time to do their own (at the cost of developping their own answers) is pathetic imo.
kame-sennin
Member
The crime bill was racist.
The 'law and order' platform was racist when Nixon brought it out.
It was racist when Clinton co opted it.
The article I quoted showed at the time that prominent black leaders were opposed to major sections of the bill. They knew it was racist at the time. Some of them were cajoled. Some of them sold us out. But the support, reluctant or enthusiastic, of black politicians does not absolve the Clinton administration for enacting a racist law.
Hillary should just bring a trumpet to the next debate and blast incoherent noise from it every time Trump speaks. Apparently the only thing that matters to a lot of people is how much noise each candidate makes.
Yeah, it was like two minutes. He seems pretty cool.
Grizzlyjin
Supersonic, idiotic, disconnecting, not respecting, who would really ever wanna go and top that
I think that is just his standard response to perceived unfairness. Like complaining about the time or follow-ups. They talked about her emails in the first debate too.
br0ken_shad0w
Member
If they did a PTI-style fact check at the end, majority of people will still not pay attention to it.
Why do you think Trump won?
Here's the reality: If it isn't going to be Hillary, it is going to Trump.
mashoutposse
Ante Up
When Trump asked why he was getting constantly interrupted and Clinton wasn't, the moderators should've owned it and said, "Because she's actually answering the questions."
NHarmonic.
Member
A candidate saying lies as truth and trying to decieve people seems far worse, tbh. I really think some form of fact-check should be used, and the candidates called up on their bullshit.
DontBeThatGuy
Member
Absolutely. It would be a horrific soundbite, and no one would ever be able to say "I don't think he's racist" ever again. (I mean, many would probably try, I guess in some way, but of course they would)
Doubtful. Trump is already polling in single digits among African Americans and very low among every other minority group.
Everyone already knows he's racist. Why would a video change that?
Trump basically said
"Fuck him, I am running for President, his opinions doesn't matter"
LostMyNarbles
Member
Who's it supposed to seal the deal with? His supporters are going to brush it off as nothing serious, his detractors are obviously going to be outraged, but they are not voting for him anyway. The only audience that would supposedly be affected is independents, but to be honest if they are still independent at this point I somehow doubt something like this would change their opinions against everything else that has been said.
I'm not sure how you can call it a draw/ slight win for Trump and then write out the next two paragraphs.
kame-sennin
Member
No I didn't. I said that black leaders did not enthusiastically support the bill. That that is a misrepresentation of what happened at the time. There's a full NYT article with quotes showing exactly that.
I also said in my first post that even if black leaders did support it whole heartedly, that doesn't change the fact that the law is racist or that using blacks to defend it is ugly.
It's kind of amazing the lengths you are going to misconstrue my arguments.
Seriously?
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked