• 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.

NYT: Hillary Clinton, Mocking and Taunting in Debate, Turns the Tormentor

Status
Not open for further replies.
Her first two debate performances were anything but tepid, but for people who just wanted her to go out there and be an attack dog, I can understand how you might feel that way. But debate isn't as simplistic as mauling your opponent over and over, and Hillary did 100% what she should have done in all three debates.
I don't know about tepid, but she came out way stronger in this last one than she did in the first two. An easy thing to point at is that she changed "Trumped up trickle down" to "trickle down on steroids". She seems more genuine, seemed to be less on the defense, and of course managed to goad Trump into dropping those headline-making lines that allowed her to strongly win the past two debates in retrospect. I would say that the stuff about the Clinton Foundation was the only point when she didn't seem genuine and in control. That's definitely a first.

I'd say that's the reason why this was her best debate. Trump did a little better than he did in the first I suppose, but she did soooo much better.
 

DrForester

Kills Photobucket
The puppet line was great, and made even greater by him freaking out about it and responding with a childish "NO YOU ARE!"
 
rJsUK58.jpg
Holy SHIT hahaha!
 
She took the gloves off when she needed to, like when she dragged him over his dumbass "I'll keep you in suspense" statement. He's up there acting like a lunatic pretending that it's totally cool to call into question the will of the people.
 
Watched the debate today after work. Dayum. That Vox video is right. He always started, trying to be calm but she got under his skin every time with stuff, that would normally not distress an opponent, but since he´s an imbecile it worked. She put on a clinic tonight.

That 30 years of experience comparison and him finding a way out of paying higher taxes. And the puppet thing, hmhmhm, delicious.

Did this get posted yet?

https://mobile.twitter.com/TheFix/status/789090575249125376

Angry Trump post-debate.

Yiy77Hf.png
 

Shadybiz

Member
It's fucking happening. Being smart and prepared is now a negative. Idiocy is upon us.

Along those lines, I have found myself in a couple of arguments with idiots on Facebook (not my friends...but friends of my friends and family). They'll say something, and I'll refute it, and back it up with links to Politifact, Snopes, etc. They don't like that. One of them actually said "I don't respect copy and paste." I responded back "Do you respect actual facts and reading??" ...I got no reply.

Edit:

She needs to be put in jail.

She murdered a man on live TV.

And that man's name? Benjamin Ghazi.
 

NewFresh

Member
This video strikes me as mostly wrong.

It's not really clear that the debates moved the needle (the video ignores the tape coming out in the middle, and the wearing off of previous negative shocks on Hillary's numbers from her pneumonia thing); it's not unprecedented to get a bump from a debate; and we don't know if any debate effects are durable or not because it's the day after the third debate.

Also "modern presidential history" really means "the transition of debates to the modern format, in 2000". So we're talking about 5 elections. And I actually think Obama's 2nd debate performance in 2012 exceeds any of Clinton's this time around.

I think the video is right that her performance was strategic in terms of what bait to ignore, what to take, and how to bait Trump (the Miss Universe thing is hilarious in that it was such an obvious prepared rope-a-dope, it was so obvious and he took it anyway). It is definitely true that in both the second and third debates Trump started out calm and got less calm, although the second debate was probably more driven by the moderators than Clinton.

The end conclusion that Trump won the Republican debates is wrong. Almost none of the Republican debates clearly ended with Trump as winner. He "won" largely by not losing--as in as the poll and thought leader, he needed to be taken down in the debates, and he wasn't, and that's largely a factor of the free-for-all format rather than Trump's qualities as candidate or debator.

This is like peak Cracked.com/Vox-splaining. It's a video of a relatively smart articulate guy saying something shallow but reasonable sounding that doesn't really say anything at all. Like, yeah, we all see the debates and the post-debate polls and Clinton clearly won the debates, what else is the video adding to this obvious fact? Turd emoji.

Thank you. I found the video to be a trite over simplification of everything that has happened in the last 60 days. Hillary won the debates, which makes me incredibly happy, but to the video takes it to a ridiculous level that is honestly just dumb.
 

Shig

Strap on your hooker ...
I'm a little annoyed she didn't really return fire on any of his repeated 'You've had 30 years in Washington, why haven't you done everything you wanted?' badgering, like anyone who's in politics has a magic wand that ignores your opposition. Most viewers with a passing knowledge of majority rule probably understand how ridiculous his sentiment was, but don't take that understanding for granted and make it crystal clear for everyone. She could have done with a good "Donald, do you even know how passing policy in Washington works? Do you not understand that we have to fight past partisan lines to make any movement on anything, and that one side has repeatedly refused to play ball?" to swat it down, illustrate the problem clearly, and place the blame with obstructionist Republicans where it belongs.

Also I'm repeatedly at a loss as to why she hasn't picked up the near-as-damn 'Yeah, I've stiffed my workers on payment, so what?' thread Trump dropped in the first debate and tugged at it mercilessly. That could have been "You didn't pay for that" on steroids with the blue-collar and small business set this campaign; Some working class Americans might not see what the big deal is about misogyny, they might brush aside casual racism, they don't understand the finer points of international diplomacy, but a boss promising you a paycheck and then leaving you in the lurch when payday comes? That's something anyone who's ever worked should be able to see the villainy in and condemn. Whyyyyy isn't Hillary's campaign going after testimonials from businesses who Trump has screwed over on the bill? They're out there, they're more common than women he's groped, and they're likely to draw more universal empathy. Parade them out relentlessly!
 
Also I'm repeatedly at a loss as to why she hasn't picked up the near-as-damn 'Yeah, I've stiffed my workers on payment, so what?' thread Trump dropped in the first debate and tugged at it mercilessly. That could have been "You didn't pay for that" on steroids with the blue-collar and small business set this campaign; Some working class Americans might not see what the big deal is about misogyny, they might brush aside casual racism, they don't understand the finer points of international diplomacy, but a boss promising you a paycheck and then leaving you in the lurch when payday comes? That's something anyone who's ever worked should be able to see the villainy in and condemn. Whyyyyy isn't Hillary's campaign going after testimonials from businesses who Trump has screwed over on the bill? They're out there, they're more common than women he's groped, and they're likely to draw more universal empathy. Parade them out relentlessly!

That's one thing I don't really understand either. It's something that would hit so hard in the Midwest. There are many guys I've worked with who have told me stories of working for a company and being stiffed on several weeks pay. Nothing infuriates a person more than not being compensated correctly for their work.
 

border

Member
Also I'm repeatedly at a loss as to why she hasn't picked up the near-as-damn 'Yeah, I've stiffed my workers on payment, so what?' thread Trump dropped in the first debate and tugged at it mercilessly. That could have been "You didn't pay for that" on steroids with the blue-collar and small business set this campaign; Some working class Americans might not see what the big deal is about misogyny, they might brush aside casual racism, they don't understand the finer points of international diplomacy, but a boss promising you a paycheck and then leaving you in the lurch when payday comes? That's something anyone who's ever worked should be able to see the villainy in and condemn. Whyyyyy isn't Hillary's campaign going after testimonials from businesses who Trump has screwed over on the bill? They're out there, they're more common than women he's groped, and they're likely to draw more universal empathy. Parade them out relentlessly!

She pressed him on this in the second debate, and his response was pretty much "Ehhh, maybe I didn't think they did a good job." Anybody that was already predisposed to support Trump will accept that as an answer. "I do a really great job at work, so he'd never stiff me!"
 

cornerman

Member
It remains amazing to me that non of the Republicans could take him down during the primaries, because he's extremely easy to tear apart once you get down to it.

The others were too concerned with not alienating his supporters. He was leading and they wanted to display 'respect' for him, so when he fell off they could absorb his followers. The problem is he never fell off like everyone expected. Also doesn't help that they had mostly the same message, trying to argue the finer points of their particular plans to an audience that just wanted red meat. Lines like ' any one of us would be better than Hillary Clinton' legitimized Trump as viable. They were following the party's talking points to a 'T' - "attack Hillary". Everyone had a quip for her and Obama. That's why none of them really took off. They were virtually carbon copies of one another-loyal conservatives staying on message like always. Everyone was claiming to be tough on Hillary, which left an opening for Trump...'I'll be the toughest...I'm so tough, I'll eat these tough guys for lunch. The people ate it up. With so many candidates he was able to coast on tough questions he didn't know, as moderators struggled to give each candidate time. The rest of Trump's adversaries were so sure he'd lose steam they went after each other, hoping that the collected sum of nonTrump voters would file behind them.

Repubs made a pathway for Trump. For years they gave their constituents red meat, humored ridiculous claims and conspiracies, preyed on people's fears and ignorance,prioritized feelings over facts, and demonized the other party. For 8 years they basically had their members be a monolith. Everybody is on message, everyone has the same talking points, everyone reacts the same. They created a constituency that they couldn't possibly appease without seeming unhinged to the rest of the country, and spineless candidates who can't stand without a manual or the party playbook, and can't muster up the courage, common sense, and conviction to denounce a fascist without permission. Seriously, a grown man on national television was so programmed he couldn't say he wouldnt support Trump, if he actually raped a woman. In 2012, I watched a stage full of Republican candidates joke about electrocuting Mexicans on a fence...on national television. The moment I saw it, I knew there was no chance Obama would lose reelection. I have yet to see a real leader amongst them...and judging by the way they cookie cut their members, I don't think they're cultivating leadership in that environment to begin with.
 

Korey

Member
I'm a little annoyed she didn't really return fire on any of his repeated 'You've had 30 years in Washington, why haven't you done everything you wanted?' badgering, like anyone who's in politics has a magic wand that ignores your opposition. Most viewers with a passing knowledge of majority rule probably understand how ridiculous his sentiment was, but don't take that understanding for granted and make it crystal clear for everyone. She could have done with a good "Donald, do you even know how passing policy in Washington works? Do you not understand that we have to fight past partisan lines to make any movement on anything, and that one side has repeatedly refused to play ball?" to swat it down, illustrate the problem clearly, and place the blame with obstructionist Republicans where it belongs.

Thing is, being able to get stuff done despite obstruction is a large part of what makes a good lawmaker, or at least that's the perception. Being able to negotiate, bring people together, etc. Making excuses like saying people blocked her a lot for 30 years would just make her look ineffective.

So she had nothing to gain by going down that path, it was probably the right thing to just ignore it or change topics.
 

NetMapel

Guilty White Male Mods Gave Me This Tag
Unfortunately I think his line of attack fhat he's taking advantage of tax loopholes that Hillary helped create or maintain by being in the government for 30 years might resonate with a lot with people. That's the defence I see a lot of people use now when I discuss Hillary's policies with them. Doesn't matter what the policy is, they say she's part of the corrupt establishment for 30 years and didn't close the tax loop holes and help the economy. Why would she start fixing those stuff now as president? Curious how this will all turn out...
 
Unfortunately I think his line of attack fhat he's taking advantage of tax loopholes that Hillary helped create or maintain by being in the government for 30 years might resonate with a lot with people. That's the defence I see a lot of people use now when I discuss Hillary's policies with them. Doesn't matter what the policy is, they say she's part of the corrupt establishment for 30 years and didn't close the tax loop holes and help the economy. Why would she start fixing those stuff now as president? Curious how this will all turn out...

Apparently when you're in the government you can force through whatever you want at any point. I mean, let's forget that not even the President can do that.
 

Shig

Strap on your hooker ...
She pressed him on this in the second debate, and his response was pretty much "Ehhh, maybe I didn't think they did a good job." Anybody that was already predisposed to support Trump will accept that as an answer. "I do a really great job at work, so he'd never stiff me!"
I get that, but it's pretty easy to illustrate the fallacy of that kind of thinking. If you go to a restaurant and eat their food and end up not liking it, you can refuse to tip, you can never eat there again and encourage your friends to avoid it, but you can't run out without paying the check.

'Dine-and-dash Donald' would be a catchy insult, to wit.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom