Rozalia Posted September 27, 2016 Share Posted September 27, 2016 Surprised somewhat at the online polls honestly. Looking at it again I agree with those who feel Trump being put on defense was a large part due to the questions fielded, some of which amounted to things like "Why are you a racist?" and "Why do you hate women?". However those questions were inevitable ultimately and best they're out of the way now. If in future debates such things are brought up like that again then it's worth getting angry about, not so much this time. What makes her, or anyone for that matter, Presidential material? What must one be to be declared "Presidential" material? One standard which Bill Clinton changed was one had to have served in the armed forces. Up until he hit office every President served. This is just one example of what used to be a measure of Presidential grade. American citizen, 35 years of age, and a longtime resident. Everything else is just someone's feelings on what traits the candidate should have. Military service used to be a big thing but the Democrats saw to that, experience used to be another but if Obama can be President (and no you racist progressives, it ain't because he's black) then anyone can. Trump has decades of experience in business which is just as relevant to the job as Clinton's decades of political experience so they're even enough on that end. What I gather people mean is you're not "Presidential" if you don't answer questions with answers that have been focus group approved. Which is why even some detractors will admit that Trump is passionate while Clinton is not. She's so slick and you know every answer has passed through focus groups for maximum pandering that she comes off as cold and calculating which is why she constantly had that smile, to try and hide it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LordRahl2 Posted September 27, 2016 Share Posted September 27, 2016 I too am suprised that the bots voted for Clinton. I would have pegged the script writters to auto vote for Trump. As for why a racist and a bigot is suprised at being asked about his racism and bigotry...why should he be suprised about that Roz? I know, I know - you think "those words don't mean anything anymore". Except they do to people who do not throw themselves on such candidates. And no, tossing the words racist, black, and progressive in the same sentance does not mean you can deflect your open and frequent racism - Roz. Being "president" means different stuff to different people. Generally it may mean not getting tongue twisted when an opponent, political or a foreign leader, slightly prods you. Quote -signature removed for rules violation- Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Floating Hippo Posted September 27, 2016 Share Posted September 27, 2016 Donald Trump got taken to school in the debate, which does poorly for his false image of "Winning". He did fine the first 20 minutes and just went tumbling down afterwards, this seems to be the consensus agreement among people who aren't completely biased. (Independent study groups) Second, to anyone who is trying to make excuses as to why Trump lost such as the questions were rehearsed by Hillary is complete bs, at the beginning if you were watching the Debate/ Election committee said the questions were not givien to anyone or any party in advance, not even they knew them. The only person who knew them was the moderator who came up with them. Secondly, "the questions were racist baits and biased" not true, they questions were both aimed at things voters do not like in either candidate, such as when the moderator brought back the email question when Hillary tried to dodge it and when the moderator brought up the legitimate allegations and fears the American people have that Trump is racist. Quote ^oo^ (..) () () ()__() Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rozalia Posted September 27, 2016 Share Posted September 27, 2016 (edited) Donald Trump got taken to school in the debate, which does poorly for his false image of "Winning". He did fine the first 20 minutes and just went tumbling down afterwards, this seems to be the consensus agreement among people who aren't completely biased. (Independent study groups) Second, to anyone who is trying to make excuses as to why Trump lost such as the questions were rehearsed by Hillary is complete bs, at the beginning if you were watching the Debate/ Election committee said the questions were not givien to anyone or any party in advance, not even they knew them. The only person who knew them was the moderator who came up with them. Secondly, "the questions were racist baits and biased" not true, they questions were both aimed at things voters do not like in either candidate, such as when the moderator brought back the email question when Hillary tried to dodge it and when the moderator brought up the legitimate allegations and fears the American people have that Trump is racist. Seems to be aimed at me. I've made no excuses myself. Some questions were aimed strongly at Trump and you're being biased yourself if you think the email bit was anywhere near as strongly pushed or that she got the same level of "exclusive" questions aimed at them (as in questions you got defend yourself on and your opponent gets a free shot), however thats fine for this debate. As for the "rehearsed" bit you're misunderstanding me. I wasn't saying there was some conspiracy where Clinton knew all the questions to begin with, no. Simply put she prepared very well, knew what to expect, and had her very prepared focus tested answers. She prepared, Trump didn't. She should receive credit for that and in my opinion winning the debate. Regardless she came across as false to me, biased I know as I said in my first post on it. Edited September 27, 2016 by Rozalia Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brooklyn666 Posted September 27, 2016 Share Posted September 27, 2016 "big league", which is at least a phrase. I would have had to drink like 1/2 a bottle if he had said "bigly" again. Is it confirmed that's what he said? Honest to god I listened 12 times and couldn't tell. And the sad part is I'm not sure which one is worse. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rozalia Posted September 27, 2016 Share Posted September 27, 2016 (edited) Is it confirmed that's what he said? Honest to god I listened 12 times and couldn't tell. And the sad part is I'm not sure which one is worse. Pretty sure bigly has never been a thing he's said and he's just saying "big league". Even if it is bigly it's actually a word anyway so LordRahl2 is lying as usual in it not being a word. http://www.dictionary.com/browse/bigly Edited September 27, 2016 by Rozalia Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LordRahl2 Posted September 27, 2016 Share Posted September 27, 2016 Is it confirmed that's what he said? Honest to god I listened 12 times and couldn't tell. And the sad part is I'm not sure which one is worse. I thought I heard league and others say so so yes? Either way I agree with you. Quote -signature removed for rules violation- Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LordRahl2 Posted September 27, 2016 Share Posted September 27, 2016 Pretty sure bigly has never been a thing he's said and he's just saying "big league". Even if it is bigly it's actually a word anyway so LordRahl2 is lying as usual. http://www.dictionary.com/browse/bigly I like how after I unearth Roz's blatant lies he decides to try calling me a liar. Note that I said he used big league. What a joke you are Roz. Anyway: http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2015/09/24/bigly_or_big_league_what_exactly_is_donald_trump_saying.html Quote -signature removed for rules violation- Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LostWorld Posted September 27, 2016 Share Posted September 27, 2016 I am listening now the recorded version since I wasn't able to follow the show. Still at the beginning and when Hillary said "he borrowed 14 milion from his father" Oh my god that must've hurt a lot. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moon Man Posted September 28, 2016 Share Posted September 28, 2016 here are my thoughts. Trump did what he needed to do, that is not do anything completely outlandish. Hillary may have slightly edged out Trump, but that is to be expected when the moderator asked 15 personal questions to Trump and only 2 to Hillary 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hypnotoad Posted September 28, 2016 Share Posted September 28, 2016 One standard which Bill Clinton changed was one had to have served in the armed forces. Up until he hit office every President served. This is just one example of what used to be a measure of Presidential grade. You're kidding, right? John Adams, John Quincy Adams, Martin van Buren, Cleveland, Taft, Wilson, Harding, Coolidge, Hoover, and FDR were all elected President before Bill Clinton without having served in the armed forces. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LordRahl2 Posted September 28, 2016 Share Posted September 28, 2016 You're kidding, right? John Adams, John Quincy Adams, Martin van Buren, Cleveland, Taft, Wilson, Harding, Coolidge, Hoover, and FDR were all elected President before Bill Clinton without having served in the armed forces. You missed Thomas Jefferson and Millard Fillmore. Quote -signature removed for rules violation- Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hypnotoad Posted September 28, 2016 Share Posted September 28, 2016 You missed Thomas Jefferson and Millard Fillmore. Technically speaking, Jefferson was in the Virginia militia, and Fillmore in the New York militia. Several more just served in their militias, so that list grows if you take out militia service. I decided to leave it in, because the point was made regardless. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LordRahl2 Posted September 28, 2016 Share Posted September 28, 2016 Bush the 2nd served in a Militia but he is not considered to have served. Quote -signature removed for rules violation- Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hypnotoad Posted September 28, 2016 Share Posted September 28, 2016 (edited) Alright, fine. John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, John Quincy Adams, Martin van Buren, Tyler, Polk, Fillmore, Buchanan*, Lincoln, Cleveland, Taft, Wilson, Harding, Coolidge, Hoover, and FDR. *only served in respective state militia, but did actually see action in said role Edited September 28, 2016 by Hypnotoad Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LordRahl2 Posted September 28, 2016 Share Posted September 28, 2016 I will cede on Buchanan, I was more interested in TJ. Quote -signature removed for rules violation- Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WISD0MTREE Posted September 29, 2016 Share Posted September 29, 2016 (edited) This is an interesting debate on who served. I mean, if we are including the organized militia, then we could include the unorganized militia. ( a ) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.( b ) The classes of the militia are—--(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and--(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia. This was mostly me trying to see if my Multiquote button was working again, but it isn't. : ( Edited September 29, 2016 by WISD0MTREE Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LordRahl2 Posted September 29, 2016 Share Posted September 29, 2016 We are here to improve this discussion board. Seems to be working. Anyway. What do you all think about this theory: Trump intentionally tanked the first debate in such a spectacular fashion in order to lower expectations for debate two and three closer to the election. Quote -signature removed for rules violation- Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hypnotoad Posted September 29, 2016 Share Posted September 29, 2016 Given his insistence that he won, even getting angry at allies who conceded that he lost, I don't believe for a second that he intentionally tanked it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LordRahl2 Posted September 29, 2016 Share Posted September 29, 2016 Hmmm, but maybe the after debate stuff is an act? Quote -signature removed for rules violation- Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hypnotoad Posted September 29, 2016 Share Posted September 29, 2016 I'd like to think that if he were talented enough to pull something like that off, he wouldn't have to stoop to such a bizarre long-con as his only chance of winning. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LordRahl2 Posted September 29, 2016 Share Posted September 29, 2016 A fair point sir hypno. Quote -signature removed for rules violation- Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrsPigeon Posted October 2, 2016 Share Posted October 2, 2016 Are you guys kidding me. Trump lost almost completely. He said a lot of stupid stuff, no one in their right mind took him seriously. No professional person can look at him and say he's presidential, or even fit for being president. Clinton played it well. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cromstar Posted October 3, 2016 Share Posted October 3, 2016 We are here to improve this discussion board. Seems to be working. Anyway. What do you all think about this theory: Trump intentionally tanked the first debate in such a spectacular fashion in order to lower expectations for debate two and three closer to the election. In addition to Hypno's point, the 2nd and 3rd debates have historically been a wash in elections. Such a strategy would be basically giving up on a chance for a million dollars, in order to play for 5 bucks. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LordRahl2 Posted October 3, 2016 Share Posted October 3, 2016 In addition to Hypno's point, the 2nd and 3rd debates have historically been a wash in elections. Such a strategy would be basically giving up on a chance for a million dollars, in order to play for 5 bucks. This seems like a non-traditional year. After the brilliance that was debate #1, why not tune in for #2/3? Quote -signature removed for rules violation- Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.