• 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.

Presidential Debate #2 |Washington University| Grab me right in the Ken Bone

Who won?

Results are only viewable after voting.
Status
Not open for further replies.
B

bangbang i'm a timpani

Banned
DontBeThatGuy said:
Absolutely. It would be a horrific soundbite, and no one would ever be able to say "I don't think he's racist" ever again. (I mean, many would probably try, I guess in some way, but of course they would)
Click to expand...

we'll probably get a bunch of "I have black friends" and then a panel of african americans before the next debate calling Clinton racist
 
D

DontBeThatGuy

Member
Mattenth said:
Doubtful. Trump is already polling in single digits among African Americans and very low among every other minority group.

Everyone already knows he's racist. Why would a video change that?
Click to expand...

You wanna see what a mass exodus of Republicans would look like? You would see it instantly. (and independents and moderates hold their noses would NOT wanna be apart of that, even though OF COURSE he's said it, probably many times)
 
M

Manmademan

Member
kame-sennin said:
The crime bill was racist.

The 'law and order' platform was racist when Nixon brought it out.

It was racist when Clinton co opted it.

The article I quoted showed at the time that prominent black leaders were opposed to major sections of the bill. They knew it was racist at the time. Some of them were cajoled. Some of them sold us out. But the support, reluctant or enthusiastic, of black politicians does not absolve the Clinton administration for enacting a racist law.
Click to expand...


You seem to have a hard time distinguishing "This bill negatively impacts minorities more than others" from racism.

The two are not the same thing. Everyone- not just the clintons, not just the CBC, but mayors, pastors, and regular voters were well aware that urban minorities would be hit hard by that, but were willing to accept the consequences ANYWAY, because crime was at epidemic proportions.

Realizing this doesn't mean they "sold us out", it means they were desperate. I was alive and around in 1994, damned near out of high school, and well aware of what was going on. Context matters. No one called the clintons racist then, and its extremely off base to try and paint them as racist now- and every black politician that voted for it as somehow a "sellout" or "cajoled" into doing it.

Everyone was well aware, and willing to deal with those consequences because better options did not exist or weren't politically feasible.

This is the last word I'm going to say to you on this, because it's off topic. But you should seriously reevaluate your position and your language.
 
K

King Tubby

Member
EmmanuelMunoz said:
I'm not sure how you can call it a draw/ slight win for Trump and then write out the next two paragraphs.
Click to expand...

I don't think Hillary did all that great on the night, when she should have done spectacularly. Her opponent was reeling, she should have been able to hammer him on the tapes, on his party deserting him, and all of his other bullshit. Trump was able to put her back on her heels a bit by being so unhinged and willing to go after her in every regard he could, whether there was truth to it or not. I think he had several very good moments against her, as well.

What kept it from being a strong Trump win were his demeanor and those moments where he stumbled or reminded people of all his flaws and his baggage. And ultimately, even a strong Trump win wasn't going to save this campaign. But he kept it from being the coup de grâce that I think most people expected it to be.

Knoxcore said:
When everything he said is a lie then he DID NOT WIN. Period.
Click to expand...

If that were the case, Kaine would be considered the clear winner of the VP debate, but the consensus is that Pence won (even if Kaine did accomplish his objective of damaging Trump/causing a schism between Kaine and Trump).
 
D

DontBeThatGuy

Member
bangbang i'm a timpani said:
we'll probably get a bunch of "I have black friends" and then a panel of african americans before the next debate calling Clinton racist
Click to expand...

That video/soundbite wouldn't just finish his candidacy for good, it would impact his businesses more than they already have been. Sure, the majority of America knows he's a bigot, but get that shit on video and tape playing 24/7 everywhere? Him and his brand would be so done.
 
T

teruterubozu

Member
DontBeThatGuy said:
That video/soundbite wouldn't just finish his candidacy for good, it would impact his business more than it already is. Sure, the majority of America knows he's a bigot, but get that shit on video and tape playing 24/7 everywhere? Him and his brand would be so done.
Click to expand...

Pretty much. He would go from Donald Trump to Donald Sterling in one fell swoop.
 
F

FlutterPuffs

Member
I understand what you guys mean when Trump won, he made his base happy.

But correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't debates one way to influence undecided voters? If we decide it on that metric then it's probably Hillary's win.

What Trump did was merely mastubatory to his base. I can't see it affecting the others.
 
S

Stumpokapow

listen to the mad man
King Tubby said:
I thought debate 2 was a draw or slight Trump win. Perhaps that's relative to expectations - after the first debate and the recent headlines, I expected Trump to essentially get crushed (or crush himself). However I thought he had a plan and executed it, which was in and of itself surprising, in that he became a full-on attack dog on Hillary to keep the night from being completely focused on his own transgressions. Hillary did not always address his attacks or defend herself properly, and I think he hit on her on many weaknesses of her general public perception.

However, he needed to do more than that. He may have stopped the rash of GOP defections and kept the Republican base from entirely deserting him, but his campaign has not yet fully pulled out of its death spiral. Outside of calling Hillary corrupt and dropping some zingers he did absolutely nothing to reach beyond his support base. He had an awful demeanor and presence on that stage; it was the most menacing I've ever seen a candidate carry himself. It seemed clear he was boiling with rage for almost the entire night.

Trump also had several key moments that were terrible for him. He did not defend himself well at all for the tapes. "Locker room banter" is not a winning strategy here for anyone with ears, and he needed to be pressed fervently and repeatedly on the point before he squeezed out an insincere "no I didn't." His denial was like ripping off a band-aid when, if it were legitimate, it would have been boisterous and forceful. Trump is not a wilting flower. His constant pettiness and whining about the moderation did him no favors. His break with his own running mate was shocking. He condescended to minorities. In fact, he basically didn't engage with any of the audience in that town hall.
Click to expand...

Your representation here is very consistent with what everyone in the room, including I, thought. I think we may have overall found it more to be a draw than you, but nothing you're saying here seems wrong.

FlutterPuffs said:
I understand what you guys mean when Trump won, he made his base happy.

But correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't debates one way to influence undecided voters? If we decide it on that metric then it's probably Hillary's win.

What Trump did was merely mastubatory to his base. I can't see it affecting the others.
Click to expand...

It is definitely the case that the question of "who won the debate" is virtually irrelevant unless tied to some metric as to whether the debate impacts the race.
 
N

Netherscourge

Banned
If there is another tape, it'll come out the Friday before the next debate.

Gives the moderators enough time to prepare questions about it and lets the public sink their teeth into it.
 
D

DerangedHermit

Member
lEyee3K.jpg


<insertappropriatedeadgiforjpghere.gif.jpg>
 
K

Kaladin

Member
One stat I haven't seen that I'd like to, how many actual questions were answered by each candidate?

They dodged the shit out of some of those. Especially that first one. Neither really gave an answer to if they felt their actions on the TV-MA debate were appropriate. And on others, they might have answered for a sentence or two but then they would go into some other topic.
 
E

Elandyll

Banned
LostMyNarbles said:
Who's it supposed to seal the deal with? His supporters are going to brush it off as nothing serious, his detractors are obviously going to be outraged, but they are not voting for him anyway. The only audience that would supposedly be affected is independents, but to be honest if they are still independent at this point I somehow doubt something like this would change their opinions against everything else that has been said.
Click to expand...
Imo there's only one type of audience that can still be peeled off Trump, the center right college educated white men who aren't racist themselves, but explaining away Trump's behavior and comments so far as "he doesn't really think that, he is just playing to the far right".
These guys find Trump appealing based on Business experience, anti-establishment, and taxes. All it would take to send some of them to Johnson would imo be a smoking gun racist comment (probably hate Hillary though, so fat chance flipping them).
 
K

kame-sennin

Member
Manmademan said:
You seem to have a hard time distinguishing "This bill negatively impacts minorities more than others" from racism.

The two are not the same thing. Everyone- not just the clintons, not just the CBC, but mayors, pastors, and regular voters were well aware that urban minorities would be hit hard by that, but were willing to accept the consequences ANYWAY, because crime was at epidemic proportions.

Realizing this doesn't mean they "sold us out", it means they were desperate. I was alive and around in 1994, damned near out of high school, and well aware of what was going on. Context matters. No one called the clintons racist then, and its extremely off base to try and paint them as racist now- and every black politician that voted for it as somehow a "sellout" or "cajoled" into doing it.

Everyone was well aware, and willing to deal with those consequences because better options did not exist or weren't politically feasible.

This is the last word I'm going to say to you on this, because it's off topic. But you should seriously reevaluate your position and your language.
Click to expand...

It is off topic, so I'll note that we got here because Ekai told a Clinton critic to check their privilege. I think it's appropriate to end this tangent by responding to this post thusly;

Check yo damn privilege.
 
C

Casimir

Unconfirmed Member
kame-sennin said:
The crime bill was racist.

The 'law and order' platform was racist when Nixon brought it out.

It was racist when Clinton co opted it.

The article I quoted showed at the time that prominent black leaders were opposed to major sections of the bill. They knew it was racist at the time. Some of them were cajoled. Some of them sold us out. But the support, reluctant or enthusiastic, of black politicians does not absolve the Clinton administration for enacting a racist law.
Click to expand...


How have you not moved to another country yet? Following your logic, since America was founded by slave owners and racists and has continued varying levels of racist policy, it's clearly irredeemable.

Or do you just have irrational hatred for the Clintons?
 
F

FlutterPuffs

Member
Stumpokapow said:
Your representation here is very consistent with what everyone in the room, including I, thought. I think we may have overall found it more to be a draw than you, but nothing you're saying here seems wrong.



It is definitely the case that the question of "who won the debate" is virtually irrelevant unless tied to some metric as to whether the debate impacts the race.
Click to expand...

Yeah. It's really sad that Trump can 'win' debates by not imploding. It's something I understand but am really frustrated about.
 
benjipwns

benjipwns

Banned
Elandyll said:
I agree that they shouldn't do "live" fact checking, as in after every statement. But imo telling the candidates that at 3 specific marks (every 30 mins, last one at the end), a counter will appear on screen and on set tallying the number of false statements for each candidates (just a number), the detail of the false statements being posted online on a neitral website.
They would also make clear to the candidates that the results are not there to be argued about, but to allow for the candidates to "correct the course".
Click to expand...
NHarmonic. said:
A candidate saying lies as truth and trying to decieve people seems far worse, tbh. I really think some form of fact-check should be used, and the candidates called up on their bullshit.
Click to expand...
The problem is that you can't "fact check" a lot of things in a clear way in the time span while being actually objective.

Trump says his plan will cut taxes $8 billion for the middle class and cut the debt by $80 trillion. That's not a statement you can "fact check" because you can only pick one of many potential estimates to decide for the counter.

These kinds of things affect all kinds of statements, maybe they say the wrong year or number or name for something else. Do you mark it as false when they may have just mispoke?

If Hillary says "Trump's foreign policy will make us worse off in the world" that's another type of statement that can't be "fact checked" in a solid way. It relies on endless hypotheticals.

Ultimately when you break down a lot of what is said, even by Trump, it falls into these kinds of categories. On the Iraq War thing for example, people point to his pithy Howard Stern statement, Trump points to a number of others that are more extensive. That becomes a situation where it's hard to determine the "real truth" of the statement because we don't know what Trump truly was thinking at the time, just what he said in various interviews, and he's someone who changes his positions a lot. Even in the same event or discussion he'll do it. So do we take an offhand comment or do we take his longer term opposition. And ultimately even that is supposed to be placed relative to Hillary's support through 2009, so Trump being "first" is still his point on better judgment. (Just want to note here that I am giving every benefit of the doubt just to show the problems that can arise trying to do this in the two hour span of the debate.)

This is how Obama's "if you like your plan you can keep it" was rated true by Politifact (I think) in 2008, 2009 and 2012 because they were comparing it to Obama's campaign platform and then in 2013 they named the same thing their "Lie of the Year" because there was an actual event to compare it to.

Also, there's a lot of instances where the "lie" is one of omission. Trump saying he's paid taxes every year is undoubtedly true because he's probably paid sales taxes if nothing else and many years he "paid" income taxes but used depreciation and other things that what he's saying is technically true, but there's a larger story to it. It's not as easy as quickly marking it up as false.

Sorry for rambling but mostly I'm trying to get across how difficult this is if you really want it to be successful and not instantly get attacked and the story of the "debate" being the lying FAT checkers who rigged the whole thing for Trump because he also had this lie and this lie and this lie and that wasn't a lie by Hillary because she meant "yes, I murdered the people at Benghazi" when she said she didn't and also Trump said this which wasn't a lie but worse.
 
L

Lil'DigiOp

Member
When people are talking about who "won or lost" and one of the candidates didn't even say one factual sentence during the whole debate....

So stupid.
 
V

vikki

Member
Mattenth said:
Doubtful. Trump is already polling in single digits among African Americans and very low among every other minority group.

Everyone already knows he's racist. Why would a video change that?
Click to expand...

The same way everyone knew he was a mysoginist creep, but that tape made his supporters look really bad.
 
F

Fades

Banned
girlfriendofagamer said:
When people are talking about who "won or lost" and one of the candidates didn't even say one factual sentence during the whole debate....

So stupid.
Click to expand...
It's all about the optics though! And because Hillary didn't devolve into having a shouting match with Trump that means she clearly lost. I mean, think of the zingers, and how sassy Trump was! Clear winner, right?
 
M

Manmademan

Member
kame-sennin said:
It is off topic, so I'll note that we got here because Ekai told a Clinton critic to check their privilege. I think it's appropriate to end this tangent by responding to this post thusly;

Check yo damn privilege.
Click to expand...

You want to pull the "privilege" card? You want to die on that hill, go right ahead.
You know nothing about me, what my "privilege" is, OR my experiences in this country before and after the bill as a minority.

you know nothing of where I grew up, nothing of my career, and I'm willing to bet you know a fuckload less about mass incarceration than I do, since I've spent the past 4 years working in a maximum security prison after leaving the private sector. I could very easily make more elsewhere, but I believe in the work we do here- stressful and dangerous as it is.

You want to spout off from a position of ignorance, go right ahead. Please, tell me more about my "privilege". We're all waiting for you.
 
A

Aaronology

Member
Kor of Memory said:
This is actually pretty accurate. At a certain point, all their "answers" turned into nonsense that no one really gave a shit about, including the moderators.
Click to expand...

MIMIC said:
lol
Click to expand...

Icyflamez96 said:
Sounds about right, lol.
Click to expand...

Cloud Strife said:
Nice notes! Agreed.
Click to expand...

Apathy said:
You need to do these synopsis every time, awesome
Click to expand...

HowardRoark said:
This is a great summary.
Click to expand...

Behold, the Both Sides Brigade of GAF!

Yesterday many of us were amazed that so many people could watch this event and conclude Trump won or that it was even a draw given that one candidate gave substantive answers and addressed, in detail, policy positions and the questions posed to her by the town hall undecideds while her opponent literally rambled incoherently throughout the night, if less so than in the last debate. These posts are a reminder that regardless of how Clinton exhibits her experience and her willingness to tackle topics that require nuance and a depth of knowledge there will always be people who caricaturize her and her stances.

These are people who, I suspect, don't really care about the issues. And if I am to be honest, I also suspect many of these people aren't really on the fence, but embarrassed right wingers who have internally acknowledged the defense of Trump is a lost cause on GAF and have segued onto the safer and more disingenuous tactic of bringing HRC down to his level.

Example:

13. Voting for Supreme Court justice replacement?
H: I want one that will do the things I want. Senate are assholes for not doing their job.
Click to expand...

Here is what Clinton actually said:

CLINTON: Thank you. Well, you’re right. This is one of the most important issues in this election. I want to appoint Supreme Court justices who understand the way the world really works, who have real-life experience, who have not just been in a big law firm and maybe clerked for a judge and then gotten on the bench, but, you know, maybe they tried some more cases, they actually understand what people are up against.

Because I think the current court has gone in the wrong direction. And so I would want to see the Supreme Court reverse Citizens United and get dark, unaccountable money out of our politics. Donald doesn’t agree with that.

I would like the Supreme Court to understand that voting rights are still a big problem in many parts of our country, that we don’t always do everything we can to make it possible for people of color and older people and young people to be able to exercise their franchise. I want a Supreme Court that will stick with Roe v. Wade and a woman’s right to choose, and I want a Supreme Court that will stick with marriage equality.

Now, Donald has put forth the names of some people that he would consider. And among the ones that he has suggested are people who would reverse Roe v. Wade and reverse marriage equality. I think that would be a terrible mistake and would take us backwards.

I want a Supreme Court that doesn’t always side with corporate interests. I want a Supreme Court that understands because you’re wealthy and you can give more money to something doesn’t mean you have any more rights or should have any more rights than anybody else.

So I have very clear views about what I want to see to kind of change the balance on the Supreme Court. And I regret deeply that the Senate has not done its job and they have not permitted a vote on the person that President Obama, a highly qualified person, they’ve not given him a vote to be able to be have the full complement of nine Supreme Court justices. I think that was a dereliction of duty.

I hope that they will see their way to doing it, but if I am so fortunate enough as to be president, I will immediately move to make sure that we fill that, we have nine justices that get to work on behalf of our people.
Click to expand...

If you can watch this and then run to GAF with a summary that is simply "I want things", it is clear that marriage equality, Roe v Wade, Citizens United and filling the vacancy are not issues that are of concern to you. In the first post I quoted, Kor said HRC's responses were just "nonsense that no one really gives a shit about." But these "things" matter a great deal to a great many people and the BSers are giving themselves away by how easily they dismiss such issues.

Honestly at this point I've given up being alarmed or frustrated by both sides crap. It's a position held at this stage of the election almost exclusively by the willfully ignorant or the cowardly who'd rather not publicize their support for Donald Trump.
 
F

FunkyMunkey

Banned
girlfriendofagamer said:
When people are talking about who "won or lost" and one of the candidates didn't even say one factual sentence during the whole debate....

So stupid.
Click to expand...

no you see trump showed up with his shoes tied, didn't shit himself, and threw so much crap at the wall that hillary didn't have enough time to get to each lie. therefore it's at least a tie according to election curve. hillary needs to publish an 80 page dissertation each appearance or else she loses to the tangerine cancer
 
S

shadowsdarknes

Member
While fact checking and being truthful does matter, it isn't everything.

Tone and delivery timing do matter. And Trump kept his cool a lot better than last time.
 
T

teruterubozu

Member
shadowsdarknes said:
While fact checking and being truthful does matter, it isn't everything.

Tone and delivery timing do matter. And Trump kept his cool a lot better than last time.
Click to expand...

He may have kept his cool but his body language was terrible, about as bad as a public speaker can get. Pacing, leering, hunching over.
 
A

Armaros

Member
Aaronology said:
Behold, the Both Sides Brigade of GAF!

Yesterday many of us were amazed that so many people could watch this event and conclude Trump won or that it was even a draw given that one candidate gave substantive answers and addressed, in detail, policy positions and the questions posed to her by the town hall undecideds while her opponent literally rambled incoherently throughout the night, if less so than in the last debate. These posts are a reminder that regardless of how Clinton exhibits her experience and her willingness to tackle topics that require nuance and a depth of knowledge there will always be people who caricaturize her and her stances.

These are people who, I suspect, don't really care about the issues. And if I am to be honest, I also suspect many of these people aren't really on the fence, but embarrassed right wingers who have internally acknowledged the defense of Trump is a lost cause on GAF and have segued onto the safer and more disingenuous tactic of bringing HRC down to his level.

Example:



Here is what Clinton actually said:



If you can watch this and then run to GAF with a summary that is simply "I want things", it is clear that marriage equality, Roe v Wade, Citizens United and filling the vacancy are not issues that are of concern to you. In the first post I quoted, Kor said HRC's responses were just "nonsense that no one really gives a shit about." But these "things" matter a great deal to a great many people and the BSers are giving themselves away by how easily they dismiss such issues.

Honestly at this point I've given up being alarmed or frustrated by both sides crap. It's a position held at this stage of the election almost exclusively by the willfully ignorant or the cowardly who'd rather not publicize their support for Donald Trump.
Click to expand...

I will put rightlu call it for what it is.

Intellectual cowardice and laziness. People that don't want to and can't be bothered to learn anything about a topic so they can keep spouting their puerile low level garbage as a real talking point.
 
A

Aaronology

Member
shadowsdarknes said:
While fact checking and being truthful does matter, it isn't everything.

Tone and delivery timing do matter. And Trump kept his cool a lot better than last time.
Click to expand...
So. What.

He still lost his cool, he still interrupted constantly, he still picked fights with the moderators, he still went on tangents, and this time he did all of that while stalking the stage and hoovering behind his opponent like fucking Michael Myers.

"He did better than last time, tho~" is not a metric we should be praising him by. This was a Presidential debate, not a kindergarten show and tell.
 
T

Toxi

Banned
Something that bugs me

TRUMP: And you look at our miners. Hillary Clinton wants to put all the miners out of business. There is a thing called clean coal. Coal will last for 1,000 years in this country. Now we have natural gas and so many other things because of technology. We have unbelievable &#8212; we have found over the last seven years, we have found tremendous wealth right under our feet. So good. Especially when you have $20 trillion in debt.

...

The EPA is so restrictive that they are putting our energy companies out of business. And all you have to do is go to a great place like West Virginia or places like Ohio, which is phenomenal, or places like Pennsylvania and you see what they&#8217;re doing to the people, miners and others in the energy business. It&#8217;s a disgrace.
Click to expand...

CLINTON: But I also want to be sure that we don&#8217;t leave people behind. That&#8217;s why I&#8217;m the only candidate from the very beginning of this campaign who had a plan to help us revitalize coal country, because those coal miners and their fathers and their grandfathers, they dug that coal out. A lot of them lost their lives. They were injured, but they turned the lights on and they powered their factories. I don&#8217;t want to walk away from them. So we&#8217;ve got to do something for them.
Click to expand...

There are less than 75,000 coal miners in the US, a country with over 300 million people. They are a fiftieth of a percent of the population. And yet both Presidential candidates keep tripping over themselves to adore that demographic.
 
C

CapitalismSucks DonkeyBalls

Banned
Moderators receive the biggest L from last nights debate. Why mics aren't cut after the time is up is beyond me. Cooper and Co. either lost all control or tried to helicopter moderate when they felt entitled to.

Also, I can't view this as a draw or anything that gives Trump a sliver of credence for the outcome of the debate. He spewed hot air, lies, and misdirects without touching many of the questions or, when he did, his responses were vague and littered with his typical adjectives like best, wonderful, etc.

In the end, this election just sucks
 
T

Tingle

Member
Toxi said:
Something that bugs me





There are less than 75,000 coal miners in the US, a country with over 300 million people. They are less than a hundredth of a percent of the population. And yet both Presidential candidates keep tripping over themselves to adore that demographic.
Click to expand...

I think its because its viewed as a traditional "American" job, and if either flat out said they would be fine losing those jobs, it would be a very easy way to get attacked.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

[Bustle] Please Respect Mia Khalifa’s Rebrand
6 7 8 9 10
499
65K
Maiden Voyage replied
  • Locked
Pfizer’s Covid Vaccine Over 90% Effective, applying for FDA authorization later this month
2
67
8K
TaylorSwiftFan replied
Dakrest Dungeon 2 first look reveals a sequel done right
Opinion News 2
60
10K
Bartski replied
Big Business and Government: Grand conspiracy or ramblings of a mad man?
3
1K
Soodanim replied
Kotaku bitching about CoD Vanguard - it's too woke, apparently, to the point it defies history ... *SPOILERS*
Opinion Spoilers Drama 2 3 4 5
204
28K
Spukc replied
Top Bottom