quality posters only wrote:
Godwin wrote:Trump appeals to racists that don't like to be called racists. And boy there's a lot of people like that.
You reason like a middle school student.
What racists want to be called racists? If they do exist don't they like Trump too? Your post makes no sense.
And I hate Trump but your post is just weak.
lipstick on a pig wrote:
FactChecker wrote:Trump accomplished what was needed. He held his own against a so called elite debater while not self destructing. Look for trump to get a boost in the polls. What most of the political insiders/experts are missing is how the trump movement connects with the average voter. These voters are not impressed with rehearsed debate monologues. They are impressed with trump's straightforward answers without the democrat arrogance.
I cited this on the other thread but thought it good to repeat here--Scott Adams' interesting take on the debate:
http://blog.dilbert.com/post/151007796236/i-score-the-first-debateI Score the First Debate
Posted September 27th, 2016 @ 8:27am
Trump and Clinton debated each other for the first time last night. Here’s how I score the night.
Clinton won on points. She had more command of the details and the cleaner answers. Trump did a lot of interrupting and he was defensive. If this were a college debate competition, Clinton would be declared the winner. I call that victory on the 2D chess board. But voters don’t care about facts and debating style. They care about how they feel. So let’s talk about that.
For starters, Trump and Clinton both seemed “presidential†enough. That mattered more for Trump. We haven’t seen him off the teleprompter lately. So Trump passed that test by being sufficiently serious.
Clinton looked (to my eyes) as if she was drugged, tired, sick, or generally unhealthy, even though she was mentally alert and spoke well. But her eyes were telling a different story. She had the look of someone whose doctors had engineered 90 minutes of alertness for her just for the event. If she continues with a light campaign schedule, you should assume my observation is valid, and she wasn’t at 100%.
Some will say Clinton outperformed expectations because she didn’t cough, collapse, or die right on stage. That would be true if she also looked healthy in general, and her campaign schedule from here on out is full. We’ll know more this week, based on her schedule.
Clinton’s smile seemed forced, artificial, and frankly creepy. I’m already hearing on Twitter that mentioning a woman’s smile is sexist. I understand the point. But when someone goes full Joker-face and tests the uncanny valley hypothesis at the same time, that’s a bit different from telling a woman to “smile more.†My neighbor Kristina hypothesized that Botox was making her smile look unnatural. Science tells us that when a person’s mouth smiles, but their eyes don’t match the smile, they look disingenuous if not creepy. Botox on your crow’s feet lines around your eyes can give that effect. But whatever the reason, something looked off to me.
To be fair, Trump’s physical appearance won’t win him any votes either. But his makeup looked better than I have seen it (no orange), his haircut was as good as it gets for him, and he was otherwise his normal self that some voters hate and some like.
But the most interesting question has to do with what problem both of them were trying to solve with the debate. Clinton tried to look healthy, and as I mentioned, I don’t think she completely succeeded. But Trump needed to solve exactly one problem: Look less scary. Trump needed to counter Clinton’s successful branding of him as having a bad temperament to the point of being dangerous to the country. Trump accomplished exactly that…by…losing the debate.
Trump was defensive, and debated poorly at points, but he did not look crazy. And pundits noticed that he intentionally avoided using his strongest attacks regarding Bill Clinton’s scandals. In other words, he showed control. He stayed in the presidential zone under pressure. And in so doing, he solved for his only remaining problem. He looked safer.
By tomorrow, no one will remember what either of them said during the debate. But we will remember how they made us feel.
Clinton won the debate last night. And while she was doing it, Trump won the election. He had one thing to accomplish – being less scary – and he did it.
He's a sharp guy and someone the Hillary shills and apologists can't easily dismiss.
lipstick on a pig wrote:
FactChecker wrote:Trump accomplished what was needed. He held his own against a so called elite debater while not self destructing. Look for trump to get a boost in the polls. What most of the political insiders/experts are missing is how the trump movement connects with the average voter. These voters are not impressed with rehearsed debate monologues. They are impressed with trump's straightforward answers without the democrat arrogance.
I cited this on the other thread but thought it good to repeat here--Scott Adams' interesting take on the debate:
http://blog.dilbert.com/post/151007796236/i-score-the-first-debateHe's a sharp guy and someone the Hillary shills and apologists can't easily dismiss.
He's a sharp guy, but I wouldn't be citing Garry Trudeau's opinion on the election either.
The Gallant Pig Man wrote:
As a D.O. wrote:Still waiting...
Wait no more. The Gallant Pig Man has arrived.
As a D.O. wrote:
If you think you paying taxes on your 80,000 or whatever you make is somehow "picking up slack" for trump then you need to look deeper. Obama has added TRILLIONS to the debt. Your taxes aren't making up for sh*t. Nobody calls you with your big bucks asking for more money because they didn't get what they needed from trump this year. The value that trump provides by employing thousands of people far outweighs anything hrc has done her entire life, including the taxes bill pays for her.
This is a basic misunderstanding of how the government budgets. Spending plans are approved based on anticipated revenue, not revenue we currently have. If Trump does not pay taxes the rest of us do, in fact, pick up the slack, be it via increased fees, higher rates, reduced credits, reduced services etc. The debt has nothing to do with this and the notion that Trump is some grand philanthropist because he has a business that employs people is borderline outrageous.
Your tax dollars do not go primarily to welfare queens. They go to infrastructure, schools, police, social security payments for poor, elderly people who can't support themselves, children's healthcare, and wars. (If you ever voted for Bush, you have no right to complain about wasted tax dollars or the debt. QE was very obviously successful in saving us from the hole he helped drive us into. Just look at how austerity policies fared in Europe.)
As a D.O. wrote:
-Use your fancy googling machine and I know for a fact you can find endless examples of HRC being racist. Her party is essentially based on this, most of what they do is pander to what they consider a lower class of people who are easy to manipulate.
-Trump may be racist, I don't really know. I do know he has created more jobs for minorities than Clinton. Same thing with women as well.
-Ask yourself where Clinton would be if it weren't for her husband. The answer is nowhere.
The notion that the Democratic Party is based on racism ignores the last half century or so American political developments. I'm not going to explain the history of Dixiecrats, Nixon's Southern Strategy, Lee Atwater and Karl Rove to you. It's all there on the google machine.
I don't know if Trump's a racist so much as a completely clueless buffoon, but there is a reason why David Duke has been on the bandwagon from Day 1, and why Trump and Junior keep retweeting white supremacists. There is very obviously a nasty undercurrent that is gaining confidence because of his candidacy (just look at some of the posts on these boards).
Trump has not done as much for minorities and women as Clinton. Not even close. Clinton was a big part of getting CHIP passed, and that has undoubtedly had a huge impact on women's employment and minority incomes. Likewise for the Adoption and Safe Families Act. Also, roll your eyes and shout "pay to play" all you want (which party supported Citizens United again??), but The Clinton Foundation's work on AIDS treatment and getting women in third world countries better access to healthcare has done more good for the world than Trump ever will.
Finally, asking where Clinton would be without her husband is like asking where Trump would be without good ol' Dad. Probably not in the same place, but who the hell can say for sure?
FINALLY the first Clinton supporter on this thread to offer any shred of substance.
-My point remains on Trump's taxes in that it is a worthless point. Whether he does or does not pay taxes is a cup of piss in the ocean. My life, nor your life is not at all changed based on what Trump does or does not pay. If it were, then one of his 20 something audits over the years would have ended up badly for him.
-I don't think he is a grand philanthropist, but the picture painted by the clinton camp is that he is a horrible person who does nothing but scam and cheat his way into money, and that it is of no benefit to anyone but himself. This is completely false.
-I know where my tax dollars go, I was facetiously pointing towards one of the places that I wish they didn't go. I think this place will command more dollars under Clinton than Trump going forward.
-The democratic party panders to less educated minorities for votes. Some of it may be genuine, but make no mistake it is for the votes. There are too many things in Clinton's past to make me believe she gives a rats a*s about blacks and hispanics. To be fair Trump doesn't either.
-You can point to legislature for the employment of women etc and that is a fair and valid point. But, Clinton is a politician(well, the wife of a politician) and Trump is a businessman. They have done good things for women in their own arenas. For me, I would rather support someone who is actually hiring huge numbers of women versus passing legislation.
-Who has done more for aids will have no impact on my vote in any election. If that is a big deal to you then point Clinton. Again, the Clinton foundation exists because of Bill Clinton though.
-Another fair point on the comparison of Bill and Trump's dad. However, I would argue that if you look at Trump's business today that loan from his dad is worthless. He makes that amount each week. To say he wouldn't have been successful without that loan is silly. I don't think you can make a counterargument for hrc being anywhere near the potus without Bill.
Did you go to school to learn how to write? If you did you did not pay attention. I, me, my ... it's all about you. So, 0/10 grammer-boi.
Lol you cite the Dilbert guy for political info? The guy has been in hot water for racist cartoons for years!
Oh so your logic is because the taxes he pays are just piss on the ocean, he doesn't need to pay any?
Ok. Brilliant.
TRUMP: Well, I have much better judgment than she does. There's no question about that. I also have a much better temperament than she has, you know?
I have a much better — she spent — let me tell you, she spent hundreds of millions of dollars on an advertising, you know, they get Madison Avenue into a room, they put names. ... Oh, temperament, let's go after — I think my strongest asset, maybe by far, is my temperament. I have a winning temperament. I know how to win. She does not have a...
Favorite quote from debate wrote:
TRUMP: Well, I have much better judgment than she does. There's no question about that. I also have a much better temperament than she has, you know?
I have a much better — she spent — let me tell you, she spent hundreds of millions of dollars on an advertising, you know, they get Madison Avenue into a room, they put names. ... Oh, temperament, let's go after — I think my strongest asset, maybe by far, is my temperament. I have a winning temperament. I know how to win. She does not have a...
The quote a coked-up person would make while sniffling.
Coked Head Trump wrote:
Favorite quote from debate wrote:TRUMP: Well, I have much better judgment than she does. There's no question about that. I also have a much better temperament than she has, you know?
I have a much better — she spent — let me tell you, she spent hundreds of millions of dollars on an advertising, you know, they get Madison Avenue into a room, they put names. ... Oh, temperament, let's go after — I think my strongest asset, maybe by far, is my temperament. I have a winning temperament. I know how to win. She does not have a...
The quote a coked-up person would make while sniffling.
Trumpsters are willing to accept anything coming from him, and this includes his coke habit. Pretty amazing.
Just shows that he is willing to be HIGH ENERGY.
He has the STAMINA.
CHYNA!
You have no proof he does coke. If he does do coke why the hell would I care? Tons of wealthy people do. Plus he is healthy enough to be president, the other candidate is not and dems refuse to accept that fact.
Some Trumpster PLEASE give me a reason why Trump kept sniffing. When asked about it he said he didn't have a cold and then switched to claiming he had a bad mike.
It seems pretty far fetched to think that he would use coke. But if Trump thought it would help him to win, he would use it with out a second thought.
His rambling responses and his exaggerated self claims do fit with cocaine use.
Or did he just have a nervous tick.
As a D.O. wrote:
If he does do coke why the hell would I care? .
Really? Nuclear codes at the fingers tips of someone who uses cocaine?
Your statement right here speaks VOLUMES of the thinking of a trumpster.
Amazing, sad, but amazing.
As a D.O. wrote:
You have no proof he does coke. If he does do coke why the hell would I care?
Like I said above, Trumpsters are willing to accept anything coming from him, and this includes his coke habit.
As a D.O. wrote:
You have no proof he does coke. If he does do coke why the hell would I care? Tons of wealthy people do. Plus he is healthy enough to be president, the other candidate is not and dems refuse to accept that fact.
Yeah he is just the commander in chief of the world's most powerful military.
Fvcking idiot D.O. lol
I think D.O. has been shamed and we won't hear from him for the rest of the night......sniff, sniff, sniff.
TRUMPVESTITE wrote:
As a D.O. wrote:You have no proof he does coke. If he does do coke why the hell would I care? Tons of wealthy people do. Plus he is healthy enough to be president, the other candidate is not and dems refuse to accept that fact.
Yeah he is just the commander in chief of the world's most powerful military.
Fvcking idiot D.O. lol
He is a fraud or the worst pile of shit for a doctor around.
A 70 year old man doing cocaine is ok for POTUS?
Wait are you saying that a "doctor" who posts all day online might have no clients and be incompetent?
But all Trump supporters are super successful!
Just so we're clear I'm not actually a D.O. Nice to know that your simple brains just assume that I randomly put my title as my handle with no more depth than that? You guys rule.
Anyways, in medical school several of my classmates did cocaine. It allowed them to study longer and focus on the material. It isn't difficult to function normally I've been told. Much rather have that then some old hag having a seizure or coughing fit every 10 minutes. Either way its a stupid point, I doubt he does coke on a regular basis if at all.