U.S. Elections: Apocalypse upon the horizon

[Arch-MaesterPhilip]

1 hour ago, DireWolfSpirit said:

Carpetbagger Trump would namestamp himself to genital wart lotion for a 6 figure check. He's just that cheesy.

He would indeed but I hate to be the one to tell you this, of the two people on that stage last night the only carpetbagger was Hillary Clinton. 

[Boris the Blade]

2 hours 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.

The moderator was biased? Trump talked 62 percent of the time to Clinton's 38. That also isn't even bringing up the amount of times Trump interrupted Clinton. Not to mention Holt is a registered republican. Face it, Trump sucked last night because he has no clue what the fuck he is talking about and Clinton did. The optics of that make the questions look much tougher than they are. 

Bengazhi has been dealt with time and time again. Its beating a dead horse at this point. The Clinton foundation is a non issue, and if that is going to be brought up, then Trump's horrible slush fund foundation he calls a charity foundation will be brought up, which I'm assuming will just get more whining about how unfair it is to question him on it and how hard of a question it is.

It just seems everyone is so used to Trump being dealt with kids gloves that they can't fathom him not being lobbed softball questions, or that when he sits next to someone that knows how to give coherent answers to the questions asked and not talk out of their ass, he looks like the ignorant buffoon he is and the questions look harder than they really are.

 

[White Walker Texas Ranger]

Saying "the rest of the world will laugh at us" will never be an effective strategy. I mean unless you want people to circle the wagons and go against you out of spite.

It's not just a US thing. You think the Leave voters cared what the rest of the EU or President Obama thought?

[Shryke]

47 minutes ago, OnionAhaiReborn said:

"No wonder you've been fighting ISIS your entire adult life!"

Clearly the best line of the night. I want to find a way to work this in as a comeback at some point in my life. 

Not even close.

The best line if the night was Trump claiming he has the better temperament. It got the biggest laugh after all.

[SerPaladin]

Watched with my wife and my 13 year old sons, who were watching as homework for Social Studies, but would have been watching anyway.

The boys noted Hillary baiting and catching Trump a couple times, enticing him to say things without it seeming like she brought it up. Very effective in their eyes. That was some prime debating skill on her part, and a failing of his off the cuff skills.

Trump cannot resist defending his own business acumen, even when it might not help him politically. I agree that it is correct to take advantage of every law to reduce ones taxes, that is the reason the politicians wrote the laws. However, saying that on stage, or the fact that there was no fault in the racism suit he faced int he 70s... bad politics, and dumb to even engage. He really is not good at this particular game, one-on-one debate.

In the horse race, It looks like a half a percent to one percent swing in Hillary's favor.

[TrackerNeil]

1 hour ago, James Arryn said:

Unfortunately, historically when Americans become aware of this aspect they tend to stubbornly/childishly double down. Think Dubya, think Iraq, think Freedom Fries.

It does seem this way, doesn't it? To some people, ignorance and stubborn resistance to good sense is something to be proud of.

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

 OH SNAP!

 

 

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

7 minutes ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

 OH SNAP!

 

 

Boom!

 

[Castel]

Yikes.You know it's bad when people are making good memes about Hillary. She doesn't seem to do as well the millenial types that populate the memosphere.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

If we're lucky this is a direct hit on USS Blovating Blowhard.

[Mlle. Zabzie]

So I'm curious.  Why does Donald seem to believe that bringing up Bill Clinton's 1990s era sexual peccadilloes have anything to do with Hillary Clinton's fitness to become President?  Particularly when his own record in that particular arena is .... less than pristine?  I can think of the following reasons, all of them relatively, oh heck, I'll just say it, sexist:

1.  She stayed married to a person who cheated on her, therefore she must be weak.

2.  She is tainted by association - that is, the sins of the husband are visited upon the wife.  Basically summoning up all the residual and lingering anti-Clinton sentiment in general against her

3.  Basically, who Hillary is isn't that important because, well, she has a husband, and so one must look at his record.

Does it work?  Does he get a free pass on all of his scandals?  I just don't really get the gambit, but I'm not the target audience for the attack.  

[Calibandar]

1 hour ago, Harakiri said:

The moderator was biased? Trump talked 62 percent of the time to Clinton's 38. That also isn't even bringing up the amount of times Trump interrupted Clinton. Not to mention Holt is a registered republican.

 

He seemed to favor her with regards to setting her up to pounce on Trump's weaknesses yes, he brought them up for her but did not do so for Trump, and as I recall this what was expected by some prior to the debate. He did not go into her weaknesses as much, that is clear. Obviously you think she doesn't have any worth speaking of, but others disagree on that point.

As for him being a Republican, many of them are repulsed by Trump and especially the fact that he represents them so that's not really any indication that would be more likely to favor Trump. And it was not in evidence that he did.

I imagine it must be hard being a Republican and having to vote. On the one hand you really did not want Trump to beat all the dreadful candidates that were put forth and become your candidate. On the other hand you also really do not want to vote for the Democrat candidate and especially not someone you loathe and think a terrible candidate who went to this election unopposed by other candidates. Democrats will have no such doubts because they are not likely to see Trump as a good alternative even if they too think Hilary is a shit candidate.

 

 

[DanteGabriel]

Trump was so offended by Clinton bringing up that Miss Universe that he fat-shamed, he went on Fox and Friends this morning to... complain about how much weight she'd gained.

Do you think even the dim and callow propagandists who host that show might have sensed that they were helping him double down on a mistake?

[OldGimletEye]

2 minutes ago, Mlle. Zabzie said:

So I'm curious.  Why does Donald seem to believe that bringing up Bill Clinton's 1990s era sexual peccadilloes have anything to do with Hillary Clinton's fitness to become President?  Particularly when his own record in that particular arena is .... less than pristine?  I can think of the following reasons, all of them relatively, oh heck, I'll just say it, sexist:

1.  She stayed married to a person who cheated on her, therefore she must be weak.

2.  She is tainted by association - that is, the sins of the husband are visited upon the wife.  Basically summoning up all the residual and lingering anti-Clinton sentiment in general against her

3.  Basically, who Hillary is isn't that important because, well, she has a husband, and so one must look at his record.

Does it work?  Does he get a free pass on all of his scandals?  I just don't really get the gambit, but I'm not the target audience for the attack.  

Because "the base" thinks it's relevant. Rush Limbaugh said so.

For the reality based community it's not relevant and it's ridiculous.

[Mlle. Zabzie]

21 minutes ago, OldGimletEye said:

Because "the base" thinks it's relevant. Rush Limbaugh said so.

For the reality based community it's not relevant and it's ridiculous.

Does this play with the undecideds?  Glass houses and all that?

[Maithanet]

In the past year, Trump has done nothing to enamor himself of the Republican establishment, railing against them early and often.  Most of the time, this helped him, and while rebukes from National Review, Fox News or even Paul Ryan might make headlines for a day, on the whole it never really damaged him. 

But one time when having a long list of Republicans who hate you is a disadvantage is after the debate.  For example, this WaPo article outlines many Republicans who say that Trump was an unfocused mess and that Clinton won the debate.  People may not really care about the opinions of Bill Kristol, David French, Stewart Stevens, etc, but when all of these people say you lost the debate, it definitely contributes to the "Trump lost" narrative. 

I don't think that the debate will sink Trump, his support is astonishingly durable.  But I think that the bad news cycle that started ~ 2 weeks ago for Clinton is over, and that her polls will improve slightly (1-2 points) over the next week.  That isn't a huge boost, but it might be enough for her to win, since she is already slightly ahead, and the election is coming up fast. 

[Arch-MaesterPhilip]

22 minutes ago, Calibandar said:

He seemed to favor her with regards to setting her up to pounce on Trump's weaknesses yes, he brought them up for her but did not do so for Trump, and as I recall this what was expected by some prior to the debate. He did not go into her weaknesses as much, that is clear. Obviously you think she doesn't have any worth speaking of, but others disagree on that point.

As for him being a Republican, many of them are repulsed by Trump and especially the fact that he represents them so that's not really any indication that would be more likely to favor Trump. And it was not in evidence that he did.

I imagine it must be hard being a Republican and having to vote. On the one hand you really did not want Trump to beat all the dreadful candidates that were put forth and become your candidate. On the other hand you also really do not want to vote for the Democrat candidate and especially not someone you loathe and think a terrible candidate who went to this election unopposed by other candidates. Democrats will have no such doubts because they are not likely to see Trump as a good alternative even if they too think Hilary is a shit candidate.

 

 

This Republican just plans on not voting, I hate Trump and I live in New York so Hillary Clinton doesn't need my vote. All the candidates at the local level are running unopposed so I have absolutely no reason to go to the polls. It's not that hard. 

[OldGimletEye]

Just now, Mlle. Zabzie said:

Does this play with the undecideds?  

I would hope not. Then, again, the fact that people are undecided about Trump's ridiculousness is worrisome.

[Mlle. Zabzie]

15 minutes ago, Arch-MaesterPhilip said:

This Republican just plans on not voting, I hate Trump and I live in New York so Hillary Clinton doesn't need my vote. All the candidates at the local level are running unopposed so I have absolutely no reason to go to the polls. It's not that hard. 

Please vote - too many people fought too hard to make sure that we have this privilege.  Even if you write in Mickey Mouse.  

[Arch-MaesterPhilip]

6 minutes ago, Mlle. Zabzie said:

Please vote - too many people fought too hard to make sure that we have this privilege.  Even if you write in Mickey Mouse.  

I was not expecting this kind of response. People have attempted to shame or bully me into voting and I'm shocked I didn't get it here. I'm cynical by nature but I still might go to the polls. I'm more likely to write in Reverend Al Bundy or Obadiah Snooks.