2016 USA Presidential election thread II: And. Here. We. Go!

[Headspace]

Game over


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Aerin]

I'm pretty excited/scared for the debate. It does make me uneasy that the bar for her is so high and his could not be lower. No matter who "wins" the debate though you can't just call the election, Obama was a few points behind Romney after the first debate. Although I do expect the trolls to come and just post one liners like, "Game Over" if she has any missteps.

[myreality]

Bro if you like to read about policy, have I got a candidate for you! Hillary isn't a great "retail campaigner", but if you want her to back up a dump truck full of policy prescriptions for what ails us, she'll be happy to oblige.

https://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/

It's a cornucopia, enjoy!

Missed your chance to include this!



........
Thanks Day i do appreciate it.

........

For others saying that i am refusing to see it your way and am a tool for not changing my mind need to step out of that glass house of theirs. Many of my articles no matter the source (sometimes the same as theirs but on different topics) was shrugged off and not even mention as they continued on with their narrative. Not just from me either.

A few weeks ago I was reading up through a trump Forum bashing a Hillary supporter in nearly an identical way that this forum was bashing me for being more critical of Hillary, they just had more racism and spelling errors. It was very amusing.

Anyway the debate is today so lets concentrate on that in the meantime. Whats done is done.

[Day]

I have genuine anxiety over the debate. Feel like I'm going to a Nascar race (for the wrecks). Will Trump make it 90 minutes without calling her a pig or saying something equally as stupid? Will Hillary make it 90 minutes without fainting or a coughing fit? Which one is going to get under the other's skin first. I have no idea what to expect.

[archibaldcrane]

Can't believe I'm going to be at work/driving home during the whole thing. This is the worst of times.

[Headspace]

. This is the worst of times.

AKA a Hillary presidency


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Gredival]

Missed your chance to include this!



........
Thanks Day i do appreciate it.

........

For others saying that i am refusing to see it your way and am a tool for not changing my mind need to step out of that glass house of theirs. Many of my articles no matter the source (sometimes the same as theirs but on different topics) was shrugged off and not even mention as they continued on with their narrative. Not just from me either.

A few weeks ago I was reading up through a trump Forum bashing a Hillary supporter in nearly an identical way that this forum was bashing me for being more critical of Hillary, they just had more racism and spelling errors. It was very amusing.

Anyway the debate is today so lets concentrate on that in the meantime. Whats done is done.

Ok how about you respond to me specifically instead of just trying to sweep every legitimate criticism I levy under the rug by grouping me in with everyone else then playing the "You're all ganging up on me because you're just a mob of sheeple!" card repeatedly.

Thus far I've answered every concern regarding her policies by a) demonstrating that she is at least the superior of the two choices in front of us and/or b) arguing why there's no problem.

I've countered the argument that she needs to earn votes by pointing out that such a stance relies on a faulty paradigm in which people aren't responsible for the impact of their votes and that there is no legitimate moral/ethical ground for refusing to vote for the lesser of two evils within our specific political framework.

You claim she's nothing but lip service and you got disproven.

You asked for an explanation of why she's hated on the ridiculous presumption that hatred is clearly validated. Then people presented you with a life body of work dedicated to advancing the less fortunate and you shrug. I give you an example that is beyond any chance of being calculated political ambition, and you excuse it by saying that it doesn't apply because it's too long ago. I gave you an argument about why it shouldn't matter what her motives are since even if they are impure you still could rely on her future actions to follow the same pattern and you didn't respond probably hoping that everyone would forget what a good point it is.

You don't get to claim glass houses when you consistently shrug off warranted arguments and nuanced positions with dismissive non-responses. This ain't the CNN spin room and you ain't a Trump spokesperson.

[archibaldcrane]

The main plot point of Donald Trump’s story is that he’s fundamentally unpresidential — he lies, he knows nothing about policy, he’s an absurd braggart. The drama of his story is in whether he can complete his hero’s journey by overcoming his baser instincts and acting like a completely different person.

The main plot point of Hillary Clinton’s story is that she’s just not likable enough — she’s overshadowed by her husband’s warm empathy, held back by her own caution, bedeviled by the lack of storytelling skills that come so naturally to other politicians. Her hero’s journey is about forging that connection with the audience: letting them see her as a full person, finding that sense of empathy that has so eluded her in national politics.

This is all very interesting stuff, and it’s fun to watch these storylines unfold. But that’s not what we’re here to do tonight.

The presidential debate isn’t the penultimate episode of the fun reality television series American Presidential Election. It’s a job interview. And what matters in a job interview isn’t whether the candidate shows personal growth but whether he or she is the best candidate for the position.

http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politi...ial-debate-win

[Roranora]

I'm going to a show tonight and will also miss this debate. I will check this thread for the highlights and lowlights. Thanks in advance BGeeples.

[Niiro]

The presidential debate isn’t the penultimate episode of the fun reality television series American Presidential Election.

The hell it isn't.

We've been gravitating to a post-factual, rhetoric-based political system for decades, this is the big show now.

[Byrthnoth]

haha, Vox is being idealistic again. This is closer to the truth, I fear: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/marty-..._12087398.html

Everyone ready for the latest installment of "Truthiness or Truth, which do Americans prefer?" It's on various streaming services (including YouTube and Facebook Live) tonight starting at 9 PM EST. If you want to watch it on TV, I believe it will be on ABC and will be airing at 9-10:30PM EST without commercials.

[Melena]

Perfectly acceptable to hold someone to something they said/believed 25 years ago, but oh my god if they do something good 25 years ago, nah dawg, that shit be way too old and outdated now and doesn't apply to today.

[Day]

that's pretty rich coming from vox, from best I can tell they've fueled this fire right along with the rest of them

[myreality]

Ok how about you respond to me specifically instead of just trying to sweep every legitimate criticism I levy under the rug by grouping me in with everyone else then playing the "You're all ganging up on me because you're just a mob of sheeple!" card repeatedly.

Thus far I've answered every concern regarding her policies by a) demonstrating that she is at least the superior of the two choices in front of us and/or b) arguing why there's no problem.

I've countered the argument that she needs to earn votes by pointing out that such a stance relies on a faulty paradigm in which people aren't responsible for the impact of their votes and that there is no legitimate moral/ethical ground for refusing to vote for the lesser of two evils within our specific political framework.

You claim she's nothing but lip service and you got disproven.

You asked for an explanation of why she's hated on the ridiculous presumption that hatred is clearly validated. Then people presented you with a life body of work dedicated to advancing the less fortunate and you shrug. I give you an example that is beyond any chance of being calculated political ambition, and you excuse it by saying that it doesn't apply because it's too long ago. I gave you an argument about why it shouldn't matter what her motives are since even if they are impure you still could rely on her future actions to follow the same pattern and you didn't respond probably hoping that everyone would forget what a good point it is.

You don't get to claim glass houses when you consistently shrug off warranted arguments and nuanced positions with dismissive non-responses. This ain't the CNN spin room and you ain't a Trump spokesperson.

I already have answered your questions. You have a habit of ignoring the articles I post.

Never called people sheeple.

You are the biggest offender on personal attacks here. You yourself stated that bullying millenials is the best way to change their mind.

Yes I can, you have a veritable mansion. That ego of yours needs the extra room.

Anyway this is the last response as we could go through pages of going back and forth while using word from past discussions.

Move on. Time for the debate tonight.

[Cail]

[Fiye]

I think 'Real Policy is discussed' and 'Question about Clinton Email's' should've been swapped.

[Olo401]

I already have answered your questions. You have a habit of ignoring the articles I post.

Never called people sheeple.

You are the biggest offender on personal attacks here. You yourself stated that bullying millennials is the best way to change their mind.

Yes I can, you have a veritable mansion. That ego of yours needs the extra room.

Anyway this is the last response as we could go through pages of going back and forth while using word from past discussions.

Move on. Time for the debate tonight.

So sensitive because your nonsense couldn't stand up to scrutiny.. and then you do the obvious troll thing and insult someone right after crying about being insulted.

But w/e, as you said it's time for a throwdown. Don't let those ridiculous double standard expectations for each candidate get in the way of you calling DT the winner, kay?

[Ragnus]

I think 'Real Policy is discussed' and 'Question about Clinton Email's' should've been swapped.

Yeah, I already made the swap and printed it out.

[Gredival]

You have a habit of ignoring the articles I post.

Because most of the time they just repeat your point, which makes them non-responsive because my argument is usually on a different priority level.

For example, I say Hillary is a better option than Trump so she is all we have and then you post an article about how Hillary is horrible. We can accept your article at face value but it doesn't matter how horrible Hillary is if she's better than Trump.

Never called people sheeple.

Not in those exact words, but that's the generic theme. When people start chipping in because you're on the losing end, you switch the topic to how everyone is acting like a mob, how it's the mirror image of Trump supporters, etc.

You don't respond to the line-by-line, you pivot.

You are the biggest offender on personal attacks here. You yourself stated that bullying millenials is the best way to change their mind.

There's a difference between ad hominems and personal attacks which point out relevant flaws.

Case in point right here: critical reading.

I've been very open about the fact I have no patience to be nice to special snowflake millenials who talk about how HRC has to "earn" their vote.

But I've never once stated that this is the best way to win them over. I've repeatedly stated that I do it because their opinions aren't going to change, so I at least want the satisfaction of getting to berate them for their idiocy.

For example:

Be like me and berate them. Maybe you won't get them onto HRC's side but if we disillusion them enough then at least we won't have any upstart primary challenges in the future.

This generation needs another Nader because it's a decade too young, and even that might not be enough. I'll stick to chastisement that way at least I get something out of it besides the frustration. The paid Hillary staffers can be "professional"

Tell me, where in that is any indication that I seriously believe that my condescension has any chance of actually swaying people?

I'm not in this to convince anyone to vote for HRC. I'm in it to expose the illogic of refusing to vote for HRC.

Yes I can, you have a veritable mansion.

And yet again, a deflection away from the substance of the argument to talk about me.

Your interest in the substance of this debate mirrors your interest in HRC's policy. You may claim you want substance from her, but in reality you don't. It's just like how you were not even being invested enough to even notice when she released major policy proposals, and then you switched your criticism from "She doesn't answer the press" to "They aren't even challenging her" (as if that was her fault).

That ego of yours needs the extra room.

See now this is a personal attack that has no relevance. My arrogance, and I will fully admit I am arrogant, has nothing to do with the correctness of my arguments.

My arrogance comes from the confidence of knowing I'm right, and the fact I'm not going to dignify stupidity by giving it the pretense of validity.

[6souls]

Vice has an article up where they spoke to the aides of the failed Republican candidates on how Clinton should debate against Trump, but it's the .gif's that are the real winners in this article.







https://news.vice.com/article/the-re...ce-for-clinton