In the medical field, we call it Trumpus Hillary-ous Regurgitatous
** The Official Unofficial Debate Thread - Sept 26, 2016 **
- Thread starter helmuth_hubener
- Start date
phill4paul
Member
- Joined
- Dec 18, 2007
- Messages
- 46,967
In other news 67.2 million Americans showed up hung-over at work today.
FunkBuddha
Member
- Joined
- Jun 6, 2007
- Messages
- 2,086
If we're going to be stuck with this two party bullshit system, could we at least require the winner to publicly execute their opponent by his/her own hand? I mean, everyone accepts that they're voting for the lesser of two evils, right? That way you end up with one less evil person and we're all better off, right?
ProBlue33
Member
- Joined
- Nov 6, 2007
- Messages
- 2,130
I believe that the cognitive dissonance in the core American voter for both sides has never been stronger than right now.
I am not talking about RPF members we are a different type.
But as I pondered the debate, even as Pro-Trump person I had to admit that he lost, just as if your scored a boxing score card fairly and without favoritism.
Yet look at this....
People are largely voting by who they want to see win, they don't give !@#$ who won the debate.
Trump and Ron Paul have two things in common they won internet polls and the MSM went after them.
The MSM does not like grassroots populism from the GOP side.
I am not talking about RPF members we are a different type.
But as I pondered the debate, even as Pro-Trump person I had to admit that he lost, just as if your scored a boxing score card fairly and without favoritism.
Yet look at this....
People are largely voting by who they want to see win, they don't give !@#$ who won the debate.
Trump and Ron Paul have two things in common they won internet polls and the MSM went after them.
The MSM does not like grassroots populism from the GOP side.
Peace&Freedom
Member
- Joined
- Nov 29, 2007
- Messages
- 5,123
Exactly. If Trump had gone all in guns blazing on Hillary at once, the media would have given him the Lazio treatment, and would be calling him un-Presidential. Clearly Team Clinton "got to" the moderator, possibly even threatening his job hosting the NBC evening news if he didn't play ball. A check of associated stories listed at the top of Drudge this morning tells the story:
LESTER HOLT: THE THIRD DEBATER...
Asked Trump 6 follow-up questions, did not ask ANY of Clinton...
Interrupted Trump 41 times, Clinton 7...
'Fact-checking' becomes opinion journalism...
CPUd
Member
- Joined
- May 12, 2012
- Messages
- 22,978
Did the moderator cause Trump to ramble incoherently for 90 minutes?
Peace&Freedom
Member
- Joined
- Nov 29, 2007
- Messages
- 5,123
When you combatively interrupt somebody over 40 times in the roughly 40 minutes Trump had time to speak, yes, you are trying to make him incoherent. Selectively applied frequent interruptions are a classic technique of media bias.
euphemia
Member
- Joined
- Feb 21, 2009
- Messages
- 10,784
The one remark I really appreciated from Trump, "When you try to play holier-than-thou, it really doesn't work." He deserves a handshake for that, at least. I am so tired of Hillary's whining voice lecturing me on how to be a better person. She doesn't have a clue, for sure, and I'm glad someone finally said it out loud.
CPUd
Member
- Joined
- May 12, 2012
- Messages
- 22,978
I already said this on another thread, but I'll recap here just because I don't think you can blame the moderator here for Trump's bad performance. Was he biased? Yes, he was. However, Trump chose to stay on the defensive side whereas it would have been so, so easy to turn this thing around and bring it back to Hillary. As I've said before, Trump is easily goaded, full of ego, and extremely predictable, so his opponents can play him like a fiddle. He's like a fish who bites at any hook in the water and never learns not to take the bait when it's presented! His rudder is always visible and a few words can steer it in any direction you want it to go, and Hillary used this weakness to her full advantage. It's like she knows Verbal Aikido!
Most candidates can side-step this bias problem by highlighting the issues and deflecting the attacks back at Hillary, but Trump has an insatiable desire to defend his own ego against any and all attacks. What's worse, he does this through anectodal evidence (just ask Sean Hannity!) and not through the record, so it can't really be fact-checked easily. He allegedly called a Latino woman Ms. Piggy and a housekeeper. What does he do next? Shrug his shoulders and say, "That's just show biz!" and proceed to point out Hillary's own race problems? No, he attackes Rosie O'Donnel (again) and proceeds to whine about how mean Hillary has been to him in her ads. He looks immature and unable to own up to his own actions and words, citing his own lack of smear ads as positive proof that he's an all-around nice guy.
Hillary knew that her best defense against her questionable record and easily deconstructed arguments was to have a good offense. Poke at Trump and keep him preoccupied with himself. You don't have to even be a masterful debater to pull that off, as Trump's skin is so thin it's practically translucent. Moreover, when he does go on the attack, it's almost always on superficial things. When Rand pointed it out, Trump's defense against his accusations was weak and only seemed to prove his point further. There are so many things to criticize Hillary over, but stamina and looks just weren't what he should have gone for.
The facts are simple. Donald Trump did very poorly this debate. He believes in the message as opposed to the actually policy details. He claims that voters don't care about the nitty gritty and just want to know the message. It's like someone who dreams of walking on the moon, but has no idea how to build a rocket and only rudimentary knowledge of outer space. They can see Point B and dream about it, but they have no idea how to reach it. However, they believe that the very fact that they can see Point B means they're worthy of respect. At least that's how he came across last night.
Hillary, unfortunately, is such a Washington insider that she knows policy inside and out. She stuck to arguments on policy and sounded way more professional than Trump, even if you could easily point out the flaws in her reasoning. It was almost like watching an adult debate a child. The child, you could argue, has a better big-picture plan (although I personally don't think Trump is much better than Clinton), but the adult will win every time, no matter how awful he is.
Hillary might be a crooked politician with a long body count in her wake, but she can hold it together, and Trump's poor temperament will get the best of him every time. He speaks without thinking and others can call him out later. Hillary made herself look diplomatic and peace-loving (somehow) and made Trump look like a crazed lunatic ready to start war the moment someone flips him the bird.
Peace&Freedom
Member
- Joined
- Nov 29, 2007
- Messages
- 5,123
The candidates are supposed to combat each other, including frequently breaking the other's flow. The moderator is not supposed to do so.
Peace&Freedom
Member
- Joined
- Nov 29, 2007
- Messages
- 5,123
You can clean it up all you want to but the true, main fact is even simpler: It's easy to lose, and be thrown off your game when you're being double teamed. It's easy to win, if you get the softballs while the other candidate gets the hardballs, with follow-ups. Hillary didn't get asked about her real/alleged scandals or flaps, but Trump got hammered on his. Despite this, viewers saw through the unbalanced charade and found Trump reasonable, as indicated by the preponderance of the online polls (including liberal sites like Slate).
Hillary proved she could win on debate points when the issues presented are deeply tilted towards her. All Trump had to do was prove he could survive being double teamed, while not making a fatal gaffe, not prove that he was optimally prepared. He just needed to show he could weather Hillary's best engineered storm, and he succeeded.
Last edited:
helmuth_hubener
Banned
- Joined
- Nov 28, 2007
- Messages
- 9,484
They both sounded pretty similar (not great). Interrupted each other. A little annoying. Both just repeating the same stuff they always say, for the most part.
Anyway, no slam dunk (on the surface). Pretty even match. The girl was more composed and poised (though she seemed to fake-laugh a little too much every time it was her turn). Keep in mind I was only listening, not watching.
Here's something interesting: I didn't notice any particularly big bias against either one as I listened. However, in methodically going through the moderator's questions and statements afterward, it actually is quite clear that he was very biased.
That doesn't matter, though. Facts and rationality don't really matter in this case. No meaningful number of people is going to rationally and analytically pick apart the moderation after the fact like that. That's the brilliance of getting the mod in the bag on your side. It's invisible. He's automatically seen as unbiased and neutral, by the nature of the format. It was a smart move by the girl -- take every advantage you can get. (That's if one is not opposed to cheating -- I am, by the way). Everyone will perceive it as I initially did: I didn't notice any particularly big bias against either one as I listened.
Now the important points.
One was respectful, always (almost always) calling the other "Secretary". The other always called the first by his first name in a condescending way.
One brought up lots of numbers. Lots and lots of numbers. 20 trillion dollars, 230 years, 7-1/2 years to be kind of exact, we pay 73 percent, 2,200 murders, almost 4,000 shootings, on and on, almost every single answer had numbers, wherever he could fit them in. Lots and lots of boring statistics no one really (emotionally) cares about.
This was a switch. Switheroo! Switching places. One of these people was known for being bombastic, rude, and "making it up"? Who would have thought that last night he would be more respectful, formal, boring, full of policy details and statistics than his opponent?
Why this switch? And what will come of it? The switch means this:
http://blog.dilbert.com/post/151007796236/i-score-the-first-debate
That's my debate analysis.
Anyway, no slam dunk (on the surface). Pretty even match. The girl was more composed and poised (though she seemed to fake-laugh a little too much every time it was her turn). Keep in mind I was only listening, not watching.
Here's something interesting: I didn't notice any particularly big bias against either one as I listened. However, in methodically going through the moderator's questions and statements afterward, it actually is quite clear that he was very biased.
That doesn't matter, though. Facts and rationality don't really matter in this case. No meaningful number of people is going to rationally and analytically pick apart the moderation after the fact like that. That's the brilliance of getting the mod in the bag on your side. It's invisible. He's automatically seen as unbiased and neutral, by the nature of the format. It was a smart move by the girl -- take every advantage you can get. (That's if one is not opposed to cheating -- I am, by the way). Everyone will perceive it as I initially did: I didn't notice any particularly big bias against either one as I listened.
Now the important points.
One was respectful, always (almost always) calling the other "Secretary". The other always called the first by his first name in a condescending way.
One brought up lots of numbers. Lots and lots of numbers. 20 trillion dollars, 230 years, 7-1/2 years to be kind of exact, we pay 73 percent, 2,200 murders, almost 4,000 shootings, on and on, almost every single answer had numbers, wherever he could fit them in. Lots and lots of boring statistics no one really (emotionally) cares about.
This was a switch. Switheroo! Switching places. One of these people was known for being bombastic, rude, and "making it up"? Who would have thought that last night he would be more respectful, formal, boring, full of policy details and statistics than his opponent?
Why this switch? And what will come of it? The switch means this:
http://blog.dilbert.com/post/151007796236/i-score-the-first-debate
That's my debate analysis.
Last edited:
enhanced_deficit
Member
- Joined
- Mar 17, 2013
- Messages
- 28,575
Your graphic counter left out one of the debaters.
LESTER HOLT: THE THIRD DEBATER...
There seems to be a dubious trend among neoconish lobbies that does not seem all that accidental, in recent years they seem to pick minorities for some of the dirtiest jobs without any regard for damage it does to the credibility of the folks they pick to make a public face of their agenda. Years later sometimes public gets to read leaks from soneone like Colin Powell protesting, "I'm not reading this ****" but others seem to read their scripts to propagate a lyin agenda of puppet masters quietly. It is sad and abusive to an extent as not following such direction could put their livelihoods in jeopardy.
- Joined
- Jul 13, 2007
- Messages
- 63,477
Such an important question too. It will really effect future policy and actions. It will be key to the economy, terrorism and foreign policy. Yes, we were fortunate to spend so much time in this debate on the important question of Obama's eligibility to be President.
Ender
Member
- Joined
- Dec 3, 2007
- Messages
- 12,527
^^THIS^^
Trump would not stop talking- especially about himself.
If Judge Nap even says that Trump made Clinton look good, and Tyler Durden says don't blame the mod- then it's time to really look at how things really went down.
John F Kennedy III
Member
- Joined
- Sep 20, 2011
- Messages
- 13,839
It was both the moderation being one sided for Hillary and Trump not even attempting to win the debate or the election.
Ender
Member
- Joined
- Dec 3, 2007
- Messages
- 12,527
If you were a mod and you had a candidate that would not shut up, cut into the other candidate's time, and rambled on and on about himself, what would you do?
Similar threads
