U.S. Elections: Apocalypse upon the horizon

[lokisnow]

Continue the post debate madness...

clinton crushed it tonight, I was so nervous beforehand, now I am not. I even donated for the first time this election

[DireWolfSpirit]

I had to work and didnt get to see the debate. I must admit I was concerned how it would go for Hillary, not only her performance but how the media would spin it.

So she did great? That's a big relief if that's the case. I havent seen or read any reports on how the media reported it yet.

[Boris the Blade]

Trump's debate "tactics" are simple. Be loud, always find a way to interject yourself into the conversation even when the other candidate is talking even if it is just one word interjections. When talking about the topic at hand, only mention the topic name, say you have a plan, ever discuss said plan, lace anger at the current administration into what you're say, throw an insult or two, talk about yourself / something involving you, bring up topic name again, say how good your plan is, never actually discuss your plan, talk in circles, insult current administration and candidate across from you, let candidate go, one word interject, say you have more to add, talk 3 minutes over time given, be loud, insult, complain about past administration, talk about how good you are at business and how all these diplomatic problems can be solved by a businessman, insult candidate, talk about how good you are how good plans are, never give detail description of how you will solve topic at hand.

That is all Trump does. Clinton just let him go and any person that isn't blinded by hate for Clinton or ignorant and infatuated by his gimmick will see he has no clue what the fuck he is doing. He tries to wing everything and comes across as extremely ignorant as we all know he is. 
He showed he is not capable of handling the presidency. He got so flustered and pissed when Clinton was biting at what he was trying to bait her with. It worked at the republican primaries since it was really out of no where and they had no clue how to respond. 

Clinton has had how long to see how Trump acts? not only that, she also has dealt with far worse than some loud mouthed bigot that craves the attention and loves the sound of his own voice. 

Trump has no coherent answers for any topics at hand, be it at a debate or during an interview. All he does is try to tie the topic to the candidate he is facing to insult and attack them. 

Lets look at two answers from each of them involving cybersecurity. 



Trump:

As far as the cyber, I agree to parts of what Secretary Clinton said, we should be better than anybody else, and perhaps we're not. I don't know if we know it was Russia who broke into the DNC.

She's saying Russia, Russia, Russia. Maybe it was. It could also be China, it could be someone sitting on their bed that weighs 400 pounds. You don't know who broke into DNC, but what did we learn? We learn that Bernie Sanders was taken advantage of by your people. By Debbie Wasserman Schultz.

Look what happened to her. But Bernie Sanders was taken advantage of. Now, whether that was Russia, whether that was China, whether it was another country, we don't know, because the truth is, under President Obama we've lost control of things that we used to have control over. We came in with an internet, we came up with the internet.

And I think Secretary Clinton and myself would agree very much, when you look at what ISIS is doing with the internet, they're beating us at our own game. ISIS. So we have to get very, very tough on cyber and cyber warfare. It is a, it is a huge problem.

I have a son. He's 10 years old. He has computers. He is so good with these computers, it's unbelievable. The security aspect of cyber is very, very tough. And maybe it's hardly doable. But I will say, we are not doing the job we should be doing, but that's true throughout our whole governmental society. We have so many things that we have to do better, Lester, and certainly cyber is one of them.






Clinton

I think cybersecurity, cyber warfare will be one of the greatest challenges facing the next president, because clearly we're facing, at this point, two different kinds adversaries. There are the independent hacking groups that do it mostly for commercial reasons to try to steal information that they then can use to make money. But increasingly, we are seeing cyberattacks coming from states.

The most recent and troubling of these has been Russia. There's no doubt now that Russia has used cyberattacks against all kinds of organizations in our country, and I am deeply concerned about this. I know Donald been very praiseworthy of Vladimir Putin.

But Putin is playing a very tough, long game here. And one of the things he's done is to let loose cyberattackers to hack into government files, to personal files, the Democratic National Committee. And we recently learned that this is one of their preferred methods of trying to wreak havoc and collect information. We need to make it very clear, whether it's Russia, China, Iran, or anybody else, the United States has much greater capacity.

And we are not going to sit idly by and permit state actors to go after our information, our private sector information or our public sector information, and we're going to have to make it clear that we don't want to use the kinds of tools that we have. We don't want to engage in a different kind of warfare. But we will defend the citizens of this country, and the Russians need to understand that.


That is just one example and it's also not even the worst one. 

Trump is that kid in class that didn't do his homework or study that eventually gets called on in class and is asked to explain the pages they were supposed to read the night before. 

[James Arryn]

Did not watch, in part because I'm in Thailand, in part because I find presidential debates really, really depressing/frustrating and I think this year would be off the charts. 

First, in terms of substance and targeted comments, they usually discourage the fuck our of me...almost always left really dissapointed about American priorities and outlook. But, more, I never ever get them right...can't describe how many times I thought Dubya got killed only to find his polls shooting up because of some combination of low expectations, spin doctors and w/e the fuck 'seeming Presidential' means at any given time. 

Which brings me to my last point, re: self-defeating Democrat supporters...every fucking election they do the same thing; yammer on pre-debate about how outclassed the R candidate is, rub their hands with glee anticipating the massacre...then like a week before the debate, suddenly realize how low the bar is set for the R candidate like it happened in a vacuum, worry a bit...spend the debate itself talking about how false/meaningless the R candidate's comments are like that matters, almost always complain about the moderator, and then complain that, win or lose the polls are not a reflection of the reality of the debate. Rinse, repeat. Every fuckng year. At some point we'll learn, but based on what I've seen this past few minutes months, it won't be this year.

No idea who won how, haven't read or seen a damn thing, but I'll be surprised/impressed if the routine was broken. It fucking better be, a Trump presidency is just a horrible scenario for the world.

[David Selig]

2 hours ago, Harakiri said:

Trump:
...
I have a son. He's 10 years old. He has computers. He is so good with these computers, it's unbelievable. The security aspect of cyber is very, very tough. And maybe it's hardly doable. But I will say, we are not doing the job we should be doing, but that's true throughout our whole governmental society. We have so many things that we have to do better, Lester, and certainly cyber is one of them.

This guy's ego is really off the charts. Even in reply to this question he managed to spend 20 seconds bragging how smart his kid is.

[Erik of Hazelfield]

Harakiri, I think those two quotes just summed it up. Trump has NO FUCKING IDEA what he's doing and I'm frankly amazed anyone is willing to let him anywhere near the white house. 

[Crazydog7]

Liberals be ye not complainant in November for the love of God go out and vote.  The best part was the look on Trump's face when he said "China" and you could hear the dead silence in the audience.  You could see the internal monologue going like he was saying "wait everyone booed when I said that the last time why isn't it working?"

I hope he fails and that all the sycophants that have attached themselves to the Trump rocket get badly burned as well. 

[The Marquis de Leech]

15 minutes ago, Crazydog7 said:

Liberals be ye not complainant in November for the love of God go out and vote. 

Oh, I think any residual complacency evaporated during pneumonia-gate. The issue is more dealing with deadly false equivalency.

 

[OldGimletEye]

Well this is interesting:

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/28/upshot/prediction-markets-score-it-a-rout-clinton-over-trump.html

Quote

All told, Mrs. Clinton’s odds of winning the election rose from around 63 percent in the minutes before the debate started to 69 percent by the end. Likewise, Mr. Trump’s chances of winning the White House declined by five percentage points. Other prediction markets, such as PredictIt, showed an even larger move against Mr. Trump.

When people have to put their money where their mouth is, they’re less likely to spew bullshit.

[Ice Queen]

2 hours ago, Erik of Hazelfield said:

Harakiri, I think those two quotes just summed it up. Trump has NO FUCKING IDEA what he's doing and I'm frankly amazed anyone is willing to let him anywhere near the white house. 

He'll be near it anyway. He's opening a yuge building right next door, don't you know. 

[SeanF]

16 minutes ago, OldGimletEye said:

Well this is interesting:

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/28/upshot/prediction-markets-score-it-a-rout-clinton-over-trump.html

When people have to put their money where their mouth is, they’re less likely to spew bullshit.

In my experience, political betting markets are a poor predictor of outcomes, because most people bet according to sentiment, rather than with a view to making money.

The best recent case of this was over the Brexit vote in the UK.  Remain was solid favourite throughout, in the face of opinion polls showing that the race was essentially a coin toss.  When polls closed, some bookmakers were offering 11-1 against Leave winning the vote!  I made a fair sum, because of the crazy odds being offered against Leave.

[OldGimletEye]

2 hours ago, Erik of Hazelfield said:

Trump has NO FUCKING IDEA what he's doing and I'm frankly amazed anyone is willing to let him anywhere near the white house. 

Nope he doesn't. And despite his populist rhetoric, at times, at the end of the day, he'll probably just rely on conservative policy types to make decisions. He'll rely on people like Mr. "I feel like I'm livin in Ayn Rand Novel" Paul Ryan and some of the other clowns he's got as advisors.

I don't think he has any real interest in policy. For him, the presidency is more about having something to brag about.

[Calibandar]

The moderator was really biased towards Clinton. Is that normal?

I thought they are at least to look like neutrals? He kept feeding her questions so that she was able to pounce on Trump's weaknesses, but the things she's weak on, he did not address. Trump had to try and get to those himself. He almost seemed like he was planted there by the Democrat party.

[Chaldanya]

I've just the read the transcript and I thought the moderator was biased towards Trump.  He let Trump interrupt and respond many more times than Clinton.

I think the reason it seems like Clinton was fed questions to pounce on Trump's weaknesses is that he has so very many of them.  That's not being biased; that's pointing out that this is not a presidential man.

[Ice Queen]

2 minutes ago, OldGimletEye said:

Nope he doesn't. And despite his populist rhetoric, at times, at the end of the day, he'll probably just rely on conservative policy types to make decisions. He'll rely on people like Mr. "I feel like I'm livin in Ayn Rand Novel" Paul Ryan and some of the other clowns he's got as advisors.

I don't think he has any real interest in policy. For him, the presidency is more about having something to brag about.

I'll go one step further and say it's about making money. The Russians are counting on it. He must owe them a boatload. As I said in the other thread, this is just the biggest Ponzi scheme the world has ever seen. He's going to use the office to line his own pockets, just like the Russian oligarchs use their political power to line theirs.

Where there's smoke, there's fire. He's put too many people on his campaign staff who are or have been intimately connected to the oligarchs and Putin. 

I wish Hill had hit him harder on this. He's definitely hiding something. He's not nearly as rich as he claims and he actually bragged that it was smart to not pay taxes. I'd have said that makes him part of Mitt Romney's 47%. 

[OldGimletEye]

9 minutes ago, SeanF said:

In my experience, political betting markets are a poor predictor of outcomes, because most people bet according to sentiment, rather than with a view to making money.

The best recent case of this was over the Brexit vote in the UK.  Remain was solid favourite throughout, in the face of opinion polls showing that the race was essentially a coin toss.  When polls closed, some bookmakers were offering 11-1 against Leave winning the vote!  I made a fair sum, because of the crazy odds being offered against Leave.

Well, I think they can be wrong at times. But, I wonder if they are as inefficient as you suggest. If that is true, then it seems that would be a big opportunity for people to make some big money.

Perhaps, they aren't as well developed, as say sports betting, which are pretty difficult to beat I think.

[SeanF]

Just now, OldGimletEye said:

Well, I think they can be wrong at times. But, I wonder if they are as inefficient as you suggest. If that is true, then it seems that would be a big opportunity for people to make some big money.

Perhaps, they aren't as well developed, as say sports betting, which are pretty difficult to beat I think.

I'd say that political betting is one type of betting where people who are politically well-informed, and willing to set their own views aside, can make money.

[Mexal]

17 minutes ago, Calibandar said:

The moderator was really biased towards Clinton. Is that normal?

I thought they are at least to look like neutrals? He kept feeding her questions so that she was able to pounce on Trump's weaknesses, but the things she's weak on, he did not address. Trump had to try and get to those himself. He almost seemed like he was planted there by the Democrat party.

Except he's a Republican so highly doubt he was planted there. I think Trump got tougher questions dealing with some of his major controversies (there are so many more for him than Clinton) but just the other day with Matt Lauer, Clinton had tougher questions ("why shouldn't you be disqualified from being the President?"). 

The two topics that I was surprised didn't come up was Benghazi and immigration.

[OldGimletEye]

Just now, SeanF said:

I'd say that political betting is one type of betting where people who are politically well-informed, and willing to set their own views aside, can make money.

Interesting.  Do you think, its possible to consistently make money on average?

Do you think that is because those markets are just not well developed yet, meaning there just isn't enough "smart money" to counter bets made by irrational betters who are betting primarily on emotions?

[DireWolfSpirit]

Having had a chance to read over a few articles on the debate it looks like I was spot on with the prediction that the constant interuptions would be a huge, annoying tactic. I really feel like slugging a candidate that interupts like that, from either party, even though predictably it was thr R clown with most of the obnoxious interjections.

Cant they just run these debates more along the lines of a academic debate where each side is given equal time and you only speak when its your damn turn?  Since they insist on presenting these fiascoes without a true forceful moderator, I'd have more respect for a standyby onstage that slugs one of these idiots for talking out of turn. Serioously, lay em out till they learn not to annoy me with "living room pollution through my telly". Interupting, interjectors will never have my vote, ever.