• 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.

.JayZii

Banned
Something that bugs me





There are less than 75,000 coal miners in the US, a country with over 300 million people. They are less than a hundredth of a percent of the population. And yet both Presidential candidates keep tripping over themselves to adore that demographic.
They're a symbol of old guard Americana. It's also a way to deflect from energy issue solutions for people who don't want change.
 

jtb

Banned
Moderators receive the biggest L from last nights debate. Why mics aren't cut after the time is up is beyond me. Cooper and Co. either lost all control or tried to helicopter moderate when they felt entitled to.

Also, I can't view this as a draw or anything that gives Trump a sliver of credence for the outcome of the debate. He spewed hot air, lies, and misdirects without touching many of the questions or, when he did, his responses were vague and littered with his typical adjectives like best, wonderful, etc.

In the end, this election just sucks

Nah. People hate when candidates cut off the moderator, it makes them look petty and rude, so the problem kind of solves itself.

I agree that cutting mics is a good idea (and they have to get rid of these useless live audiences), but I think Cooper and Raddatz pressed both candidates aggressively and took the exact opposite approach to Holt. And I think it was the right approach imo. Just because you think either candidate may hang themselves on their own (the Holt approach) doesn't mean you just let them off the hook from having to answer important questions.
 

fr0st

Banned
Something that bugs me





There are less than 75,000 coal miners in the US, a country with over 300 million people. They are a fiftieth of a percent of the population. And yet both Presidential candidates keep tripping over themselves to adore that demographic.
They probably both got donations from coal companies.
 

The Beard

Member
Moderators receive the biggest L from last nights debate. Why mics aren't cut after the time is up is beyond me. Cooper and Co. either lost all control or tried to helicopter moderate when they felt entitled to.

Also, I can't view this as a draw or anything that gives Trump a sliver of credence for the outcome of the debate. He spewed hot air, lies, and misdirects without touching many of the questions or, when he did, his responses were vague and littered with his typical adjectives like best, wonderful, etc.

In the end, this election just sucks

Nah, they did a good job last night IMO. Much better than Lester "low energy" Holt.
 
Moderators receive the biggest L from last nights debate. Why mics aren't cut after the time is up is beyond me. Cooper and Co. either lost all control or tried to helicopter moderate when they felt entitled to.

I think going a bit over time is fine when the person is clearly wrapping up what they are saying. Clinton did that a lot last night, she was only a few seconds over time because she needed to finish a sentence.
 
I'm pretty sure there's a tradition of not cutting off mics in debates. We can have a discussion about whether that tradition should change, but it's not necessarily something a single pair of moderators can just decide do.

Sure I get that. But what we saw last night wasn't a town hall meeting because the moderators did poorly and both candidates decided to forego the rules of a town hall debate so that either could get the last word in which resulted in a lot of wasted time. It was really poorly run.

But it was better than what Holt gave us.
 
I thought the moderators did a good job considering that they aren't allowed to just cut off the mics. They managed to get speeches under control most of the time.
 
Yeah... When He was running for nomine of the GOP, I asked here in GAF if this man had any change of being elected, GAF responded This and this. So I'm double checking.

The polls always had him leading for the nomination though. People (myself included, early on) ignored the polls. It's the opposite in this case. The polls say he has no chance.
 
Yesterday many of us were amazed that so many people could watch this event and conclude Trump won or that it was even a draw given that one candidate gave substantive answers and addressed, in detail, policy positions and the questions posed to her by the town hall undecideds while her opponent literally rambled incoherently throughout the night, if less so than in the last debate. These posts are a reminder that regardless of how Clinton exhibits her experience and her willingness to tackle topics that require nuance and a depth of knowledge there will always be people who caricaturize her and her stances.

The sad truth is that rambling incoherently, denying the truth, and ignoring questions to instead hit tired talking points are not seen for what they are. If they were, nobody would have concluded that Pence had won the VP debate. These things ultimately are more about perception than they are about the actual issues. If I were judging it along my personal metric, I'd say the Democrats crushed the Republicans in all 3 debates so far, but if I'm trying to judge who won in terms of a more neutral, national perspective (or as close to it as one could get, since even that seems like an absurd concept at times) I have to take a step back and think of each candidate's general public perception and what they did to improve it or damage their opponent's.
 

Elandyll

Banned
The problem is that you can't "fact check" a lot of things in a clear way in the time span while being actually objective.

Trump says his plan will cut taxes $8 billion for the middle class and cut the debt by $80 trillion. That's not a statement you can "fact check" because you can only pick one of many potential estimates to decide for the counter.

These kinds of things affect all kinds of statements, maybe they say the wrong year or number or name for something else. Do you mark it as false when they may have just mispoke?

If Hillary says "Trump's foreign policy will make us worse off in the world" that's another type of statement that can't be "fact checked" in a solid way. It relies on endless hypotheticals.

Ultimately when you break down a lot of what is said, even by Trump, it falls into these kinds of categories. On the Iraq War thing for example, people point to his pithy Howard Stern statement, Trump points to a number of others that are more extensive. That becomes a situation where it's hard to determine the "real truth" of the statement because we don't know what Trump truly was thinking at the time, just what he said in various interviews, and he's someone who changes his positions a lot. Even in the same event or discussion he'll do it. So do we take an offhand comment or do we take his longer term opposition. And ultimately even that is supposed to be placed relative to Hillary's support through 2009, so Trump being "first" is still his point on better judgment. (Just want to note here that I am giving every benefit of the doubt just to show the problems that can arise trying to do this in the two hour span of the debate.)

This is how Obama's "if you like your plan you can keep it" was rated true by Politifact (I think) in 2008, 2009 and 2012 because they were comparing it to Obama's campaign platform and then in 2013 they named the same thing their "Lie of the Year" because there was an actual event to compare it to.

Also, there's a lot of instances where the "lie" is one of omission. Trump saying he's paid taxes every year is undoubtedly true because he's probably paid sales taxes if nothing else and many years he "paid" income taxes but used depreciation and other things that what he's saying is technically true, but there's a larger story to it. It's not as easy as quickly marking it up as false.

Sorry for rambling but mostly I'm trying to get across how difficult this is if you really want it to be successful and not instantly get attacked and the story of the "debate" being the lying FAT checkers who rigged the whole thing for Trump because he also had this lie and this lie and this lie and that wasn't a lie by Hillary because she meant "yes, I murdered the people at Benghazi" when she said she didn't and also Trump said this which wasn't a lie but worse.
Some things may be harder than others to fact check, and some may be "grey areas".
But there were also plenty of slam dunk lies that were plain as day and should be noted. Case in point:
- Position on Iraq invasion
- US growth rate
- sending people watching a sex tape by tweet
- trade deficit #
- growth rate #
- who started the birtherism, and Trump continuing it
- Clinton laughing at a 12yr old rape victim
- US is highest taxed country in the world
... and much more
 

digdug2k

Member
There are less than 75,000 coal miners in the US, a country with over 300 million people. They are a fiftieth of a percent of the population. And yet both Presidential candidates keep tripping over themselves to adore that demographic.
I think the base is probably bigger than that. They're trying to court anyone in any energy industry (or any industry) who's in fear of losing their job because "EPA" or "green energy". There's a few states/electoral votes out there where that's basically the entire state isn't it? I think most of them are deep red though. I think Clinton only really cared about it during the primary.

I always like to think "independent voters" are these hyper intellectual "I don't want to tie myself to any idiology" group of people out there. But I think there's a big chunk of them that are more the "I hear the EPA is bad from one friend, and I heard its good from another friend. I just don't know what to think anymore." type.
 

ElRenoRaven

Member
Oh shit CNN is a laugh riot right now. They have Vicki Sciolaro on supporting trump and she's nuts. Starts to defend it by going on about issues and talking about how Clintion is for killing babies due to Roe V Wade. Then the host gets her back on subject and she says he's not running for pope.

Jesus these people. It says a lot when the host hangs her head in her hands due to the oral office comment in regards to Bill.
 

labx

Banned
Oh man, you should see the first page of this lol


What? Good lord, people summoned the devil.

"Marketing. He'll never run, it's too much work. I'm guessing his tv show is about to premier again or he's about to sell a book."

The polls always had him leading for the nomination though. People (myself included, early on) ignored the polls. It's the opposite in this case. The polls say he has no chance.

Hoping that Murphy's law do not apply in this scenario.
 

RootCause

Member
Oh shit CNN is a laugh riot right now. They have Vicki Sciolaro on supporting trump and she's nuts. Starts to defend it by going on about issues and talking about how Clintion is for killing babies due to Roe V Wade. Then the host gets her back on subject and she says he's not running for pope.

Jesus these people. It says a lot when the host hangs her head in her hands due to the oral office comment in regards to Bill.
She's insane. So pathetic.
 

SeeThree

Member
Oh shit CNN is a laugh riot right now. They have Vicki Sciolaro on supporting trump and she's nuts. Starts to defend it by going on about issues and talking about how Clintion is for killing babies due to Roe V Wade. Then the host gets her back on subject and she says he's not running for pope.

Jesus these people. It says a lot when the host hangs her head in her hands due to the oral office comment in regards to Bill.

The oral office followed by the head hang was hilarious. She ends the segment "I just... I just... I gotta go." LOL
 

Jeffrey

Member
cnn doing gods work.

the format becomes a huge mess at times but its needed to have these trump supporters there while everyone else rolls there eyes or face palms at the complete nonsense being said.
 

MisterR

Member
I think its because its viewed as a traditional "American" job, and if either flat out said they would be fine losing those jobs, it would be a very easy way to get attacked.

The thing about coal mining is that yes, it's a small percentage of the entire country. However, the areas that are coal mining areas depend almost entirely on the coal industry. You're talking whole communities in Kentucky, WV and a few other states being basically destroyed by the end of coal mining jobs.
 

benjipwns

Banned
Some things may be harder than others to fact check, and some may be "grey areas".
But there were also plenty of slam dunk lies that were plain as day and should be noted. Case in point:
- US growth rate
- trade deficit #
- growth rate #
Just to take an example though, is the actual number of the trade deficit as important as the point being made about it?

Look Trump is wrong about the very concept of trade deficits but it doesn't really matter what the figure he says and what it actually is unless they're so insanely far apart for multiple years. And even then it's more about his refusal to admit if he's wrong. If he accepts the "correct" figures, it doesn't really change his argument.

I don't want Trump and Hillary getting a bunch of "false" thrown up just because one of them misstates the trade deficit and the other just goes with the number because it's tangential to the actual argument. And really I don't want them debating what the number is at all.

And even that's being decided by the "fact checker" choosing which source to use for the trade deficit. Maybe Hillary is using 2014 numbers because the 2015 ones weren't out yet when she prepped her talking points on it six months ago or whatever.

The actual number won't matter when they take office anyway because it will be different.

I think trying to real-time score these things or add components of actual debate scoring into what are not in any way real debates just makes them worse than the garbage they already are. That just encourages more controlled sound bite memorization.

Plus, Trump's an unique case, making rules based around him is a losers game I think.

For all the bad he brings to the table, Trump's refusal to stick to the debate rules, to ignore the moderators, etc. is more informative than if he acted like a good little Jeb! and said please and thank you and stuck to the time limits.
 

NewFresh

Member
Oh shit CNN is a laugh riot right now. They have Vicki Sciolaro on supporting trump and she's nuts. Starts to defend it by going on about issues and talking about how Clintion is for killing babies due to Roe V Wade. Then the host gets her back on subject and she says he's not running for pope.

Jesus these people. It says a lot when the host hangs her head in her hands due to the oral office comment in regards to Bill.

The oral office followed by the head hang was hilarious. She ends the segment "I just... I just... I gotta go." LOL

i need to see this.
 

Pastry

Banned
While spineless isn't an unfair charge, I will note that they are in a very difficult position. The problem they face is that Trump has a very enthusiastic base. A base that supports him not only in spite of comments like "grab them by the pussy," but more worryingly in part because of statements like that. And the issue they have is that currently they need this demographic as part of their coalition.

People like Ryan tried to get someone other than Trump nominated, but they failed. They can drop him now officially, but do the long-term benefits outweigh pissing off Trump's base? Look at what happened at that unity rally on Saturday when Trump was disinvited.

I'll note that this isn't me feeling sorry for Ryan. They all played their part in creating this situation. I'm just stating that this isn't an easy call from where I'm sitting. There's a tightrope act of trying not to go down with the ship while also not wanting to be visibly seen abandoning the ship.
The thing is that the demographic is characterized by racism and sexism. It should not be a difficult position.

Edit: woops, didn't realize how long I left the page open.
 

Oersted

Member
A potential president of a country told people to watch a sextape.

He lied about it in front of millions.

Everyone who was access to the Internet can factcheck within seconds that he lied.



The insanity, I just can't.
 

rothgar

Member
Oh shit CNN is a laugh riot right now. They have Vicki Sciolaro on supporting trump and she's nuts. Starts to defend it by going on about issues and talking about how Clintion is for killing babies due to Roe V Wade. Then the host gets her back on subject and she says he's not running for pope.

Jesus these people. It says a lot when the host hangs her head in her hands due to the oral office comment in regards to Bill.

The debate instructor afterwards was hilarious too. His words: "He (Trump) was sniffing harder than any coke fiend I've ever know."
 
Behold, the Both Sides Brigade of GAF!

Yesterday many of us were amazed that so many people could watch this event and conclude Trump won or that it was even a draw given that one candidate gave substantive answers and addressed, in detail, policy positions and the questions posed to her by the town hall undecideds while her opponent literally rambled incoherently throughout the night, if less so than in the last debate. These posts are a reminder that regardless of how Clinton exhibits her experience and her willingness to tackle topics that require nuance and a depth of knowledge there will always be people who caricaturize her and her stances.

These are people who, I suspect, don't really care about the issues. And if I am to be honest, I also suspect many of these people aren't really on the fence, but embarrassed right wingers who have internally acknowledged the defense of Trump is a lost cause on GAF and have segued onto the safer and more disingenuous tactic of bringing HRC down to his level.

Example:



Here is what Clinton actually said:



If you can watch this and then run to GAF with a summary that is simply "I want things", it is clear that marriage equality, Roe v Wade, Citizens United and filling the vacancy are not issues that are of concern to you. In the first post I quoted, Kor said HRC's responses were just "nonsense that no one really gives a shit about." But these "things" matter a great deal to a great many people and the BSers are giving themselves away by how easily they dismiss such issues.

Honestly at this point I've given up being alarmed or frustrated by both sides crap. It's a position held at this stage of the election almost exclusively by the willfully ignorant or the cowardly who'd rather not publicize their support for Donald Trump.



BOOM!

The BS brigade is almost worse than the pussy grabbed.
 

NewFresh

Member
A potential president of a country told people to watch a sextape.

He lied about it in front of millions.

Everyone who was access to the Internet can factcheck within seconds that he lied.



The insanity, I just can't.

It was by far one of the most blatant lies he's told if only for how talked about and recent it was. Literally every new network had his tweet on the screen for a week beforehand. I mean, it's still right out there on his Twitter.
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/781788223055994880?lang=en
 

Nordicus

Member
Goddamn, Warren Buffet responds to Trump's claims that he also used carryforward to avoid paying federal income taxes.

Cua1eBkWYAEX8oM.jpg:large

https://twitter.com/carlquintanilla/status/785514714839351296
When you can donate over 2 billion dollars, and then pay nearly $2M in income tax after that, you don't have a restless night of sleep for the rest of your damn life.

...Until you hear Donald Trump is running for president.
 

Nokagi

Unconfirmed Member
You wanna admit to sexual assault or rape? Why just step into a locker room. It's clearly a portal to another plane of existence were our laws and morals no longer matter.
 

rjinaz

Member
You wanna admit to sexual assault or rape? Why just step into a locker room. It's clearly a portal to another plane of existence were our laws and morals no longer matter.

LMAO

"Your honor, I was in a locker room when I admitted I raped that woman"

"Well! Case dismissed!"
 

kaching

"GAF's biggest wanker"
RE: Realtime Fact-Checking. I wonder if IBM's Watson or perhaps Google's Deep Mind or similar system could pull it off reasonably well. Would be hilarious to pair it with a sedate HAL9000 voice that could just interject as appropriate. "Yes, Donald, you most certainly did say you had sexually assaulted women."

Or just do a reckoning at the end of the debate, with both candidates still on stage.
 
D

Deleted member 17706

Unconfirmed Member
Behold, the Both Sides Brigade of GAF!

Yesterday many of us were amazed that so many people could watch this event and conclude Trump won or that it was even a draw given that one candidate gave substantive answers and addressed, in detail, policy positions and the questions posed to her by the town hall undecideds while her opponent literally rambled incoherently throughout the night, if less so than in the last debate. These posts are a reminder that regardless of how Clinton exhibits her experience and her willingness to tackle topics that require nuance and a depth of knowledge there will always be people who caricaturize her and her stances.

These are people who, I suspect, don't really care about the issues. And if I am to be honest, I also suspect many of these people aren't really on the fence, but embarrassed right wingers who have internally acknowledged the defense of Trump is a lost cause on GAF and have segued onto the safer and more disingenuous tactic of bringing HRC down to his level.

Example:



Here is what Clinton actually said:



If you can watch this and then run to GAF with a summary that is simply "I want things", it is clear that marriage equality, Roe v Wade, Citizens United and filling the vacancy are not issues that are of concern to you. In the first post I quoted, Kor said HRC's responses were just "nonsense that no one really gives a shit about." But these "things" matter a great deal to a great many people and the BSers are giving themselves away by how easily they dismiss such issues.

Honestly at this point I've given up being alarmed or frustrated by both sides crap. It's a position held at this stage of the election almost exclusively by the willfully ignorant or the cowardly who'd rather not publicize their support for Donald Trump.

Great post. So tired of people trying to treat the two as if they are even remotely on the same level. One is a complete goon, who represents the worst of America, and has no concrete plan for just about anything. The other is a qualified candidate for the presidency, whether you personally like her or not.
 
Summary of debate by Wait But Why http://waitbutwhy.com/2016/10/second-presidential-debate.html

Anderson: But like literally—do you assault women?

Trump: Only with my respect. We’re gonna build a wall. We’re gonna have borders. People are pouring into our country from the Middle East to grab American women by the pussy. We’re gonna make America safe again. We’re gonna make America great again. We’re gonna make America safe again. We’re gonna make America wealthy again. China.

Anderson: Secretary Clinton, would you like to respond?

Clinton: Reagan. Bush. Eisenhower. Did they grab women by the arm? Yes. By the hand? Probably. Around the shoulder? Sure. But by the pussy? I don’t think so. Donald Trump is a bad man. He’s an everything-ist. He’s Matt Damon in School Ties. He’s the uncle in The Long Walk Home. He’s the mean slave owner in 12 Years a Slave. He’s the main German guy in Die Hard. He’s the woman in The Grudge. He’s Bluto. He’s Jafar. He’s the Joker. He’s a white walker. He’s a death eater. He’s a zombie. He’s a ghost. I, on the other hand, want to form one of those huge circles of different colored people that stretches all the way around the Earth where everyone’s holding hands. Can you paint with all the colors of the wind?

Martha: Okay but back to your locker room assault. You’ve said that this campaign has changed you—that though being a clear predator in that video at the age of 59, you’ve now become good. Is that really true?

Trump: Martha—I don’t know how much clearer I can make this. I told detailed assault stories that included specific dates, names, and body parts. That’s just classic locker room talk. Every guy talks to other guys about detailed stories of his previous assaults that include specific dates, names, and body parts. You don’t know this because you’re not there—but whenever guys are alone, they talk about their previous assaults. That doesn’t mean they assaulted anyone, obviously. Unless they’re Bill Clinton. Bill Clinton is a bad fucking dude. Bill Clinton told me about when he held a Taco Bell employee down by the neck in the restaurant’s utilities closet and had intercourse with her. Bill Clinton told me about having a foursome with Chelsea’s three best friends while Chelsea was sleeping upstairs. Hillary missed it because she was busy laughing at a 12-year-old rape victim who by coincidence is sitting right over there.

Martha: Nicely done. Hillary?

More at the jump.
 

benjipwns

Banned
RE: Realtime Fact-Checking. I wonder if IBM's Watson or perhaps Google's Deep Mind or similar system could pull it off reasonably well. Would be hilarious to pair it with a sedate HAL9000 voice that could just interject as appropriate. "Yes, Donald, you most certainly did say you had sexually assaulted women."

Or just do a reckoning at the end of the debate, with both candidates still on stage.
it'd be funny to see it trying to parse their statements at least

i mean *SNIIFFFFFFFFFF* this is a big deal, a disaster, that's what *SNIFFFFFF* everybody's saying i don't know but the Benghazi and the Latinos, the Hispanics they *SNIFFFFFFF* we want e-mails
 

digdug2k

Member
Honestly at this point I've given up being alarmed or frustrated by both sides crap. It's a position held at this stage of the election almost exclusively by the willfully ignorant or the cowardly who'd rather not publicize their support for Donald Trump.
Heh. I've been seeing that a lot with the pro-life Christian brigade on my Facebook feed. Like, Clinton's abortion stance is actually kinda pro-life when she talks. At worst, she's back to her nuanced self. Recognizing that procedures happen even if its illegal. Recognizing that preventing pregnancy is a better tactic than trying to prevent abortions. Recognizing that complications can require painful decisions even late term. There's nothing in any of her statements I've found that comes close to the typical left "Women should be able to choose whatever they want with their own body".

But it doesn't matter to them. She's for it. They're against it. They'd elect a brick rather than admit the issue is more nuanced than "they're killing babies!". Fuck, they'd probably concede at this point that Donald Trump has likely paid for more than a few abortions, but they'll happily vote for him under some delusional belief that he'll nominate some pro-life justices (when in reality, I have a feeling he'll probably just nominate his own kids).
 

Red

Member
A potential president of a country told people to watch a sextape.

He lied about it in front of millions.

Everyone who was access to the Internet can factcheck within seconds that he lied.



The insanity, I just can't.
I lost it when he denied that. His exact words were "check out sex tape." Like why even pretend you meant something different? You can't spin that.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom