Chase Posted September 18, 2016 Share Posted September 18, 2016 The CPD (...something something of debates something) has spoken, and much to the chagrin of the Libertarian Party's Gary Johnson and the Green Party's Jill Stein - the first United States Presidential Debates will be head-to-heads between the traditional Democratic and Republican parties. For the Veep (that's Vice President for you non-wonks out there) debate, it'll be center-lefty Tim Kaine representing the Democratic Party against conservative Mike Pence. Kaine is a Senator from Virginia and a former attorney. Pence is the governor of Indiana. The main event - for those of you non-Americans/people living under a rock - will be Former Secretary of State/First Lady Hillary Clinton against business magnate Donald Trump. If you -are- the folks living under a rock or not in this country. Consider yourselves fortunate - at least for this round of debates. --- "Gril Powur" - How Hillary wins the debate. Stay. calm. Hillary is an eloquent speaker (with an annoying voice, but that won't hurt her in a debate) when she isn't pressured. For her, she should get the benefit of the doubt when it comes to telling the truth more than her opponent as Trump will likely opt to bulldog her instead of a factual prosecution. If a moderator or Trump -does- end up correcting her by an on-the-fly fact-check, how she responds will dictate the outcome of the debate. She can't appear shrill and she can't fly off the handle if she expects to win handily. Defense is the best offense. The Clinton campaign will have to treat the debate differently than they have treated the campaign trail if they want the debates to blunt Trump's moment at all. Because of Trump's style - she will likely be exposed often and will feel some fire. That should under NO circumstances turn into insulting Trump or his supporters in turn. While many will tune in for the fireworks and soundbites, likely voters will be tuning in to hear substantive responses and effective parries. She needs to deflect falsities by identifying them as falsehoods and apologizing on good hits against her, not by trying to share the heat with her opponent. Fill the void. Clinton would make her best push toward on-the-fence voters with a genuine introduction to her resume. Why is a vote for Clinton better than a vote for Gary Johnson, Stein, and ESPECIALLY Trump? What kinds of precedents can she lean on to lead America? Why side with her? Synopsis: Clinton takes home the "W" by staying even-keel, not gratifying Trump's bomb-throwing by trying to fight back, and using every chance she gets to establish why President Hillary should be a reality. Started From the.....Bottom? - How Trump Wins the Debate Beat the Dead Horse (where there's still meat on the bone) Trump has had some success hitting Clinton where she's been exposed previously - either by FBI James Comey, House Representative Gowdy, and liberal newspapers like the Washington Post. She's also taken several critical blows from fallen Democratic Primary opponent Bernie Sanders resulting in a much closer primary race than she expected. She's got the dirt on her blouse and it would be a great help for Trump to remind everyone where he can that his opponent is flawed. Trump's inherent style allows him to play the mean guy without much push-back - but it's very important he only throws punches where Clinton can not deflect to a modicum of "line-crossing"... He faces the risk of debating a female opponent this time around. Sticking to what works should however, keep Hill's negatives in the news cycle and thus keep the margins close longer. Don't Be An Idiot. With the Donald, the game is focused on causing Hillary to trip up. In doing so however - he needs to avoid saying something other presidential candidates would regret saying. He can't afford giving Clinton's advertising directors cute soundbites. Control the Room This is where TV Trump - the guy from 'The Apprentice' - can clean up. Trump wins the debate by controlling the discourse. This can done in a number of ways - a deft one-liner, maybe a snide comment about something Clinton says, a heartwarming joke. If Donald Trump can charm the audience in the hall - he can charm the audience watching on TV. Synopsis: Trump wins the debate by holding Clinton to the fire where she's earned it, rattling her, and staying away from boneheaded statements. Notice - neither candidate necessarily has to do something as heinous as tell the truth. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Swimming95 Posted September 19, 2016 Share Posted September 19, 2016 Considering how absolutely stupid Trump has been whenever there has been no teleprompter, combined with an absolute lack of knowledge and ability to have clear policy, I do not see how he can do well in this debate. Also, do not forget there is no loud audience in the general election debates so Trump can't play the crowd and there is a good chance his attempts fall flat without applause behind them. It also comes down to the moderator. I really hope after what happened with Matt Lauer, the moderators this time do a better job. That involves following up with questions and hold Trump to facts. From the articles after that debacle, I think the moderators took notice. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chase Posted September 19, 2016 Author Share Posted September 19, 2016 Semantics of course - but relevant question... Is it that there's not a crowd at all at the debate, or that they are instructed to remain quiet during the duration of the debate? If it's the latter, Trump is very much able to lambast (and thus draw boos from) the crowd for being tied to the special interest groups Hillary offers tickets to. He did this in the Republican debates - where depending on the debate location it drew mixed results. In South Carolina (where they like bare-knuckle politics) it drew a mixed review of cheer and jeers. In a liberal setting it will likely be a wall of boos that Trump will brush off of his shoulder - because the rest of the world knows the crowd would be stacked in Clinton's favor at that point and that's where the empathy would settle in for on-the-fence voters. I know that some of the later debates have CNN's Anderson Cooper and Fox's Chris Wallace - both of which will throw tough questions AND are known to fact-check when applicable. i think Trump will have difficulty with the moderator for MSNBC because of the networks fairly blatant bias against conservatives - for the same reason Clinton's campaign was up in arms over Matt's questioning. However, if I were a debate moderator (and not a town hall moderator) I would advise against the media doing their own fact-checking and instead defer to the opponent. If Trump spouts a bunch of bull on the stage - and Clinton is standing right next to him - she has the opportunity to hit him well by correcting the falsehood in her rebuttal. If she fails to do so, Trump wins the round because his opponent let him get away with ignorance. Like I said, the truth really doesn't matter in these debates either way. It's going to be who is more made-for-TV and who is able to overcome adversity. Don't think that makes sense? See: Kennedy vs. Nixon - the first televised debate - where the Democrat looked much more comfortable and it made a difference. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Swimming95 Posted September 19, 2016 Share Posted September 19, 2016 It's a very small audience that is not allowed to make noise and will probably get thrown out if they do. And I really hope the candidates get fact checked on some level. Trump's bs should absolutely get called out. He has been ignorant this whole campaign and hopefully the media stops treating him with kid gloves. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chase Posted September 19, 2016 Author Share Posted September 19, 2016 Oh believe me - me too. However, I would like the candidates to be responsible for the fact-checking in real time because if one candidate is going to dare lying, it's an opportunity for the other one to put them in their place. As for the media? It really depends on the network or outlet. There have been some predominantly liberal outlets that have yelled at Trump from the beginning. Aside from Lauer, I'm seeing most of the professional outlets holding both candidates to a measure of professionalism. It's not the media's job to tell you who to vote for or sell a particular candidate. It's to tell it how it is. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chase Posted September 27, 2016 Author Share Posted September 27, 2016 (Obligatory post-first-debate post.) Grades: Hillary __ Trump: __ The night didn't lack for excitement and entertainment. We saw Trump revert back to the Trump we saw in the GOP primary debates - focusing on accusing Clinton of as many things as humanly possible - and we saw Hillary look pretty similar to Ted Cruz - opting to run her debate in a very similar fashion to the way she runs her campaign and focusing on holding Trump to the fire in turn. We got a night that will be spun 100 different ways, but here's my attempt at being objective. The first female presidential nominee to make it to a general election showdown - also is the first female to decisively "win" a general election debate a female participated in. TL:DR? Hillary Clinton is the first debate winner. Here's how it happened: --- Hillary put Trump on his heels the entire night - using true or mostly true information in her attacks and successfully causing the Donald to waste his allotted time defending his actions, statements, businesses, and personal image as opposed to giving him many opportunities to propose a positive image of those things. She looked to be enjoying herself - if not a little high and mighty in doing so - as opposed to stressed or uneasy. This contrasted with the visible anger on Trump's face and was the best job she did all night at drawing a contrast between the two most unpopular candidates in American history. Lester Holt didn't ask Hillary questions about her transparency - and favored putting the heat on Trump when it comes to moderators doing their own fact-checking and asking questions that make the candidate uneasy. It was not however, egregious, and Trump had many an opportunity to inject solid hits against Clinton due to the subject matter covered in the debate - and he whiffed often. --- Keys to victory grades: Hillary Stay calm - A+ - Not only did she make it through the debate without a sweat, she was having fun up there. Not good news for Trump. Defense is the best Offense - B - I misjudged what Hillary needed to do here a bit. She threw punches BEFORE Trump did - and it worked more than it didn't. It also means she didn't spend enough time apologizing or really even being held accountable for her past mistakes. Overall - she did very well here. Fill the Void - D+ - Probably one of the few things Trump did right was try to fight back here. It would be around the time Hillary would pivot from attack-mode to trying to make a personal case for herself when Trump would interrupt and have a good thing to say about Hillary's record or her own transparency. She didn't lack for trying here though - so it wasn't a total failure in this area. She just was pressured just enough to stop what she had to say and indulge Trump in his "He-said-she-said" acts. Grade: B. --- Trump Beat the Dead Horse - C- - Trump did a lot of this, but he didn't pick the right dead horse to beat more often than not. Everyone on the planet has seen that interview in the early 2000's where Trump was indecisive at best when it came to the war in Iraq - yet he sent real minutes trying to affirm that he has been "always been totally against it." - then came things like his tax returns - where he got a good dig in at Clinton's deleted e-mails, but also expounded about things nobody cares about like financial statements outside of returns and audits. He needs to learn which battles are GOOD to pick if he wants to improve in this area. Don't Be an Idiot - F - "CALL SEAN HANNITY. Nobody calls Sean! You should definitely call Sean." Control the Room - B - Lester had to admonish the crowd not to cheer after one of Trump's attacks - meaning he clearly doesn't give a damn about the rules and neither do his supporters. If the rules mean nothing to the audience and the crowd is able to back Trump up - he gets a good grade here. The crowd helped Trump from completely collapsing - as I said it would. Grade: C- to a D. --- How Trump can get the next one: Pull out the policy details and put them on the table. One of the things Donald has been very discreet with is HOW he plans to do things - and Clinton doesn't have much information out there to positively refute ALL policy points because nobody in the country knows what Donald actually plans to do as president! She showed him she has a little bit of Trump swagger. He needs to show that he's just as capable of being a policy wonk as she is. OFFENSE is the best offense. Trump defending himself at this point will be a complete waste of time. Relax. He needs to use these debates to look composed if he plans on using them to move the polls. How Hillary makes it a streak: Keep fighting with the truth. I -actually- liked this from her. It made me smile a few times. Get wonky FIRST. The "fun" should be over at this point. How you gonna be the pragmatic progressive, Hillary? Keep it classy. Hillary's body language was encouraging for Democrats, but she really needs to avoid looking "holier-than-thou" in the future. Being a snob won't win over undecided voters and with the race this close, you have to do whatever it takes to cement the win. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Swimming95 Posted September 28, 2016 Share Posted September 28, 2016 I definitely agree with that Clinton won... I think Trump will never be able to pull off the first point. He simply doesn't have any policy. It's a little hard to be wonky as its been known to come off as smug, boring, robotic, etc. She has a really tough problem with the double standard. It's also hard for Trump to be relaxed when its so easy to needle him. Lastly, since Trump seems to constantly try to debate reality, its a little hard to not get sucked into "he-said-she-said". It's pretty clear at points that Trump is living in his own reality. It was also disappointing to have Trump continuously double and triple down on his racist, sexist, generally bigoted rhetoric. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jar-Kai Marek Posted September 28, 2016 Share Posted September 28, 2016 I heard a lot of bullshit on both sides, but in my opinion, Hillary absolutely bodied Donald Trump in the debate last night. Hillary did at least speak out of truth and sincerety for the most part, but I sat back watching Trump try to steal the show and think to myself "what an asshole". Trump said one line that made me lose almost all support for him at the end when he said he didn't really care how the election turned out and voiced support for Hillary, it contradicted his statement earlier when he said it doesn't matter how, but he will be on Pennsylvania Ave. in one way or the other on his bit of building construction. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chase Posted September 28, 2016 Author Share Posted September 28, 2016 Nope. Hillary can be a great policy analyst without looking like Marie Antoinette and telling the common person to go eat cake. A perfect example of this is the first 15 minutes of the debate - where Trump had yet to say anything stupid and was actually saying things that visibly made Clinton react. It was too early for Clinton to buckle under any kind of pressure, but she stood there as Trump talked and flashed what looked like the most evil grin I had ever seen. (I believe the topic of discussion was raising vs. lowering taxes) That doesn't mean it's not boring or robotic - but policy can be articulated without laughing at your opponent, rolling your eyes, smirking, etc. She has to make people comfortable about voting for her - because contrary to popular belief if you're a part of the two-party system, it's not totally a binary choice. You can always vote third party or stay home and not vote at all. If Hillary wants people who wouldn't today to go put a check next to her name at the ballot box, she has to make those people feel comfortable about her. That's the challenge at hand. --- I won't deny it being difficult to talk when Trump will debate anything under the sun during the middle of your allotted time, but that doesn't absolve Clinton from presenting herself as the better alternative. It's one thing to say what Trump is saying is false. It's another to say "this is how I plan to do this." Both candidates could have done much better at laying their plans on the table. "Visit hilaryclinton.com" or "go to makeamericagreatagain.com" isn't going to cut it. Ask Ben Carson. --- It was disappointing indeed to see Trump backpedal into old habits period - but with things such as insults toward targeted groups in THE MULTITUDE that Trump has offended, it wouldn't be best for his presidential race to apologize for everyone he'd ever offended in a setting like last night. That's something he absolutely should do - on the trail at a rally or on the air for a major news network. The debate stage is a place he needs to appear competent with Clinton first-and-foremost. --- You're most likely correct in that he has no policy. Exhibit A as to why I'm not voting for him right there. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mde2001 Posted September 28, 2016 Share Posted September 28, 2016 The truth is people complain about Clinton no matter how she acts. When she seems a bit arrogant and holier than thou, people complain. Then when she tries to tone it down and be more relatable, people complain about her acting and trying to trick them into liking her, so she has a hard job. Clinton clearly won the debate, no questions asked and her job was a lot harder than Trump's. MSNBC's list of aims for each candidate kind of sums it up. Clinton had to get jokes off to add levity, be the Clinton who shines in a small crowd and sell how she'd do her ideas. Whereas Trump had to stop lying, show humility and fill in the gaping gaps in his policy proposals. Trump's aims were basic as hell, and things that in most years would be expectations to have already occurred. He managed to fail and getting across any of these even though they were so basic. Meanwhile, I think Clinton did rather well at toning down some things. She had some good one liners in terms of seeming more fun (albeit one absolutely awful trumped-up trickle down joke). So she succeeded in her aims a bit more than Trump's even though hers were a lot harder. That isn't to mention she did all of the things on Trump's list. Her policy was much more coherent, she spoke well, she seemed Presidential and I honestly don't think she came off as all that arrogant. I'm hoping these debates will cause a swing in Clinton's favour. She was coherent, knowledgeable and honest. She was prepared to admit her mistakes and didn't make excuses for them. Meanwhile Trump was out there claiming that his birther movement was good for Obama and people who are facing racial prejudiced/ Really all Trump showed was that he is hopeless and that he really wants us to call Sean Hannity. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chase Posted September 28, 2016 Author Share Posted September 28, 2016 I'd still prefer to see her trying as opposed to not... but I'll admit that I'm not the target audience for Clinton. She's for sure not getting my vote. - but having spoken to undecideds, she needs to appear as vulnerable and similar to a normal American as possible. People genuinely question her ability to protect them given her record - and downplaying things and laughing off genuine attacks isn't going to get them in the boat. When Trump let the woman talk - she was able to talk well on policy. coherent? Moreso than Trump, that's all that matters. Responding to Trump every time he bait-and-switches isn't the epitome of coherency. She did indeed seem smart. honest? Moreso than Trump. All that matters. She apologized for her E-mail mistake BECAUSE that was the only one Lester Holt and Trump brought up. She got a lot of breathing room... Mistake(s) plural is a bit of a stretch. I'm hoping Trump makes the remainder of the debates interesting - or that Gary Johnson rallies and gets into the later ones. It would be nice to root for someone for once. I miss that about the GOP primary debates. :c Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Swimming95 Posted September 28, 2016 Share Posted September 28, 2016 Her record is actually pretty good in most cases... I find its much more that people just don't look at it and are swept into the hysteria. Combined with how much Trump stupidity is on the airwaves, her policy isn't getting covered well. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nepeta100 Posted September 28, 2016 Share Posted September 28, 2016 (edited) first time on a political forum here oh boy so chase in your previous comments you said you werent voting for clinton or trump which third party if any do you plan on voting for? also a plus on your analysis as well :3 I also like how you don't seem to swing to one side really hard when talking about the candidates Edited September 28, 2016 by nepeta100 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jar-Kai Marek Posted September 28, 2016 Share Posted September 28, 2016 That whole bit on Trump and the "birth" movement, how after 8 years they still can't prove Obama wasn't born in America, was real irrelevant to the debate as a whole it seemed. Trump brought up this one guy (can't remember his name) who was in charge of the movement. I tuned that whole bit out in my mind, because I was told by both left and right-wing supporters that the guy was pure cancer and a white supremecist or something like that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chase Posted September 28, 2016 Author Share Posted September 28, 2016 I don't know about that - but Trump was referring to someone that was on Hillary Clinton's 2008 campaign staff that floated around traveling to Kenya to investigate the possibility of Barack Obama's not being an American citizen. Trump seized the idea from this person and turned it into a so-called "movement" that caused the newly elected President much headache - but honestly, if Obama can take it with a grain of salt in the manner that he did - people like Clinton and Holt didn't need to make this as big of an issue. It wasn't because Obama was black - because Trump would later float the same "birtherism" ideas about Republican challengers Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio, Latino men. It wasn't out of ill-will - because Trump takes "pride" in having Obama shut people up by releasing his birth certificate. It damn well isn't the "BIG ISSUE" that started Trump's political rise - that would be immigration reform. ...anyways, ranting aside, Trump is attributing the idea of President Obama not being an American to Clinton's campaign team - which is one of the more accurate things he said last night. That doesn't mean it's Hillary Clinton's fault or that the campaign staffer meant to use such a claim to put pressure on the President anywhere near the extent that Trump did. - but this idea, like many Trump actually -does- own, isn't one of Trump's "original" ones. --- Libertarians Gary Johnson and Bill Weld. Fiscal conservatives and social liberals who don't really care all that much for international affairs and don't believe America should "always" be involved in them. Thank you. This board could use a bit of level-headedness and skepticism from left to right. I identify as a conservative, but I don't worship the ground Trump walks on and I'm actually quite disgusted that this is the man Republicans want holding their standard. I absolutely believe Hillary Clinton is wrong on various issues, particularly fiscal ones - and I do believe she's just as egregious as Trump in her own ways - but I don't think she's not qualified to be president or that she's the spawn of Satan either. Both have been successful candidates in their own ways, and both have done great things for America in their own right. The issue is, both have done some pretty awful things for America too. --- This woman contributed heavily to destabilizing the Middle-East even further than her vote for the Iraq war went on and has her fair share of dealing with courts and hearings for suspected criminal activity. Giving tanks and weapons to people who hate America and Israel. Benghazi being absolutely bungled resulting in her employees losing their lives - and then being immediately thrown under the bus afterwards for the sake of liberal spin. Whitewater, being negligent with national security regarding her e-mails. You call this a good record? I call it "a" record. Say what you want about Trump - he's got her dead to rights when it comes to what kind of experience she really has. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Swimming95 Posted September 28, 2016 Share Posted September 28, 2016 Libertarianism is NOT socially liberal. That is a huge misunderstanding of their social position. Not agreeing with Clinton on fiscal record is definitely a valid criticism though. Also, birtherism is and will always be a racist concept. It is completely false that the Clinton campaign started it not that would stop Trump from making things up. So glad he really "solved" that one. http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/sep/23/donald-trump/hillary-clinton-obama-birther-fact-check/ Lastly, there has been proven no wrong doing with Benghazi and the email story is completely blown out of proportion. The amount of false information floating around about both of them is absolutely staggering and I would encourage you to take another look at all of the facts surrounding those cases. "For suspected criminal doing". It's amazing how being found innocent from many of those accusations can somehow be damning. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chase Posted September 28, 2016 Author Share Posted September 28, 2016 Let me try to tackle a few of these things in terms of how Gov. Johnson views several social issues: Race Relations - Supports Black Lives Matter and building better relationships between black communities and the police. Criminal Justice - wants to do away with "petty" criminal sentencing. Sexual Orientation - supports the recent same-sex Supreme Court decision. Abortion - Johnson believes it should be a right and supports the Roe decision - Most Libertarians are non-committal either way. Immigration - In favor of using the term "undocumented immigrants" over "illegal", critical of Trump's rhetoric Marijuana Legalization - Should be legalized in all 50 states. Religion - Johnson is for free exercise and doesn't believe government should intervene even in cases of alleged bigotry. Equal Pay for Women - For it so long as women are performing equally well or better than men. I don't see how Governor Johnson is all that conservative as opposed to liberal when it comes to social issues. I believe the misconception lies with you, Squattle. --- If it's "birthed" in racism, why was his charge against Senator Cruz "he can't be president because he's CANADIAN" instead of "he can't be president because he looks like a Mexican or a Cuban?" ...Is "Canadian" a race? I would think that's a nationality. Nationality genuinely matters because the rules essentially state that you can't run for President if you are not an "American" citizen. That doesn't mean "White" American citizen specifically. You're just drinking leftist Kool-Aid here. If you play the race card with any issue these days, it makes that issue significantly more important because it triggers an emotional response. "Kenyan" may have a prominent majority of "black people" but Trump's the kind of guy that would have said "Obama isn't an American because he's black" as opposed to "Obama isn't an American because we think he may have been born in Kenya." --- Whitewater - While many people involved were given sentences - Bill and Hillary were not even prosecuted, but were involved. Bill later pardons one of the people involved when he obtains the presidency. Benghazi - State office denies requests for additional security at the embassy in question. Four Americans die. Hillary has a random fainting spell before testifying causing a delay in the questioning process. Claims nobody died later on. Blames incident on an internet video and refused to call the attacks terrorist attacks. E-mail scandal - FBI finds "irresponsible handling" of "multiple articles of classified information" and for some reason does NOT suggest an indictment despite an evident display of guilt. Private e-mail server is proven to have been "unsafe" when it came to protecting information. It's easy to be proven innocent when you essentially live above the law. She could reprise John Wilkes Booth's role in Lincoln's assassination and be found innocent with the kind of leeway it appears she's been given. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Swimming95 Posted September 28, 2016 Share Posted September 28, 2016 I said that libertarianism as a whole is different than being social liberal and fiscally conservative. It is a lot more complex than that. Not that Johnson's specific stances are or aren't. A lot of the social liberal views are consequences of a different views on the roles of government. Honestly, I would find the looks like a Mexican or Cuban thing to be equally as problematic. It's also true that Trump continued the birther thing long after a birth certificate was given. http://www.vox.com/2016/9/16/12938066/donald-trump-obama-birth-certificate-birther I'm sorry that you don't understand how birtherism is racist. HAHAHAHAHAHAHA you're bringing up whitewater. Do you also blame them for Vince Foster's death? http://www.vox.com/2015/4/13/8397309/hillary-clinton-whitewater For 11 hours Clinton testified on Benghazi. Considering it was an admitted witch hunt, I'm shocked that they couldn't find any evidence of criminal wrong doing. While yes it was a tragedy, I don't think its accurate to blame soley Clinton for the attacks. There were a lot of other factors into them and it wasn't only due to the US involvement. I understand it being a dent on Clinton's foreign record and that I won't dispute. To say it was strictly her fault would be to go too far. It did transform into an absolutely partisan witch hunt. Especially when you compare it to the amount of attacks under the Bush administration. For emails, you should actually look into the articles of classified information. Many of them did not originate with her server or were not properly marked. Anyone who actually looked at the case could tell that the threshold for indictment was insanely high and that there was no chance of it. It was much more a problem with the way the State Department had been organized even before Clinton's time. Even Comey in a memo wrote " At the end of the day, the case itself was not a cliff-hanger; despite all the chest-beating by people no longer in government, there really wasnt a prosecutable case." If you have new evidence somehow, please call up the FBI. Again, this is a different than calling it a mistake... which it was and no one is disputing. I have no problems with you not liking her due to those things but let's at least correct the record and get the facts straight here. My problem is escalating those mistakes to breaking the law. At a certain point, its not really worth arguing this since I don't think I'll be able to change your mind. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chase Posted September 28, 2016 Author Share Posted September 28, 2016 You're going to cite Vox of all things. Twice? That's like me telling you Clinton is the devil and using Breitbart articles to make my case. I give the WaPo a lot of heat for being in the tank for Clinton, but the Post at least does a good job of providing negative information on Clinton and other liberals when it's justly applicable. --- That's not what you said before. You claimed that Libertarianism is NOT socially liberal. You are absolutely correct that Libertarianism is different from Democratic liberalism in the fact that Democrats believe the role of government is to intervene on behalf of the people whereas the role of government to a Libertarian is to stay away from the lives of it's citizens as much as it can to allow for individual freedom. That doesn't mean that Libertarians can't hold socially liberal viewpoints at all. If you had said that before I wouldn't have anything to dispute - but the way you went about it the first time coupled with the tenacity you have for defending Hillary's record indicates some degree of worry that Johnson threatens her. In that case, smart man. --- Do I think Hillary had a significant role in Whitewater? Absolutely not - but people associated with the Clintons were indeed jailed while they weren't even PROSECUTED. The optics of this coupled with later "mistakes" as you call them look HORRIBLE. This plays into the narrative that Hillary is not to the same standards as everyone else in the criminal justice system. Average Joe would have been prosecuted. Saying Hillary is responsible for the Benghazi attacks at all is foolish. You're not pegging the right conservative on that one, but I'll admit, there are several righties who act as if those four deaths were indeed her fault. Where she done goofed? She - and the State department - were completely negligent to the situation. Security issue. Negligence. Man, she really sounds like the greatest commmander-in-chief prospect if I've ever heard of one. The threshold of indictment was high even if Clinton shared her e-mails with the Russians intentionally. The Department of Justice is in the tank for for the Democrats. Republicans knew very well she wasn't going to get indicted - and it wasn't because she's "innocent". It was more because the DOJ doesn't have the stones to act in a non-partisan manner and Comey doesn't want the situation to derail an election. You wanna talk about witch hunting? Turning around and blaming her actions on Colin Powell is a witch hunt designed to take heat off of her. Bush was certainly no stranger to scrutiny. Democrats pick up their pitchforks and curse like the best of 'em. TL:DR: Trump - who was wrong a MAJORITY of the night - was absolutely right to peg her on her track record..."Dents" are simply positive spin. As for admitting that Clinton made "mistakes" - she certainly made more than one - and because she's a Clinton she's able to make them without much consequence. Maybe I'm completely wrong - but you and the Clinton camp need to do a much better job than throwing liberal media trash at me and calling it "straight facts." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Swimming95 Posted September 28, 2016 Share Posted September 28, 2016 Those were just the first articles I remembered off the top of my head. It sounded like you were originally blaming Clinton for Benghazi which I'm glad to see is not the case. We definitely differ in opinions on how much negligence there was. For me, there was a ton of good that came out of her tenure in the state department that more than outweighs the little bit of negligence I would pin on her. If you look at the actual facts about the case, there seems to be little to no negligence. I am 100% acknolweging your weight to it and mostly saying that I disagree. For the emails, at least how it sounds to me, it's seeming like there is still some misinformation about that scandal. It had nothing to do with the DoJ''s partiality and only with the facts surrounding the case. I also didn't read the Colin Powell part as blaming him but instead as a systemic issue in the state department that Powell initially denied yet was proven to be true. There was some witch hunting by several left wingers which was very regrettable. I would much sooner argue that these cases are only being scrutinized because she's a Clinton. Also I do realize I misread your sentence and thought the part about socially liberal and fiscally conservative was a modifier on libertarian not the candidates. Johnson definitely does hold some nicely liberal views yet fails for me in places related to science. That and in practice, many of johnson's more liberal efforts actually have the opposite effect. It has been proven time and time again that these socially liberal views cannot be left to the states and by doing so, most progress would be undone. Johnson is a "threat", in my opinion, only in the sense that he could act as Nader did in 2000. There is a lot of misunderstanding of his positions and a lot of unneeded frustration about the two candidates caused by not actually looking into the issues. I am not accusing you of this and more wanted to vent that bit of frustration. I fully recognize that we are viewing these things differently and that is fine to have our own opinions on them. My problem is with some misinformation that people use to form those opinions. It wasn't meant to strictly be an attack on you and more how common that misinformation spreads. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chase Posted September 29, 2016 Author Share Posted September 29, 2016 Swims, I'm not trying to attack you or change your mind. I accept the fact that we're in disagreement over the extent of how Clinton should be held accountable and how damaging her errors really were - and I understand your take on it. I have a feeling you're being a bit overly dismissive of conservative claims on Clinton's record because it suits you and not just because conservatives are calling "open season" on Hillary. The reason I say this is not because you're trying to leave most of the negativity on Trump - but because it's NOT just conservatives that are being objective about Clinton. Major liberal newspapers are also holding the former First Lady to task despite their positive bias for her. You can argue that it's because the country just isn't ready for it's first female president (and I'd disagree because once upon a time Hillary was leading Trump by double-digits in the polls, meaning there wasn't much inherent negative bias against women there, coupled by the fact that we have more women serving in the armed forces and in Congress than ever before.) and you can argue that the Clintons have been scrutinized for years and therefore anything negative said about them should be taken with a grain of salt (which I wouldn't disagree with.) I'm a Johnson voter because I'm okay with losing if it's for the sake of unraveling the political partisanship in this country bit-by-bit. I would argue that Ralph Nader made the current Democratic Party what it is, because they have moved in the direction of the Greens ever since to get those voters back into the fold. It's not a reflection of my faith in his intelligence (I knew that Aleppo was at least a major city in the Middle East, and can name several world leaders off the top of my head.) all the time. It's a reflection of the fact that in a country where one candidate is seriously detestable because of his words and his treatment of others, and the other is someone who has made some "bigly" mistakes and seems to come off as rather flippant about those mistakes from time-to-time, there are options for a conscientious voter who values both experience and excitement. I'm tired of trying to talk to someone about racial issues and then getting tuned out simply because "I'm white and I don't understand the issue firsthand." I'm tired of trying to talk to someone about the positive gun control measures that don't hurt anyone and being told "that I don't care about the Constitution or American freedoms." - Once upon a time, people were able to freely talk about politics and not get all that upset about anything. Most Americans wouldn't sell their family members or souls for either major political party then -and- now, and yet we're conditioned to be cutthroat and dismissive. Just like the government is. If it takes breaking a nonsensical party system by giving some other person a chance at the risk of electing an Oompa-Loompa who calls everyone a mean name or a lady who has a little bit more of a record than unpaid traffic tickets - so be it. Elections are fun times. They are times where Americans get to engage in the political process and make a difference. It shouldn't be so bad as having people call for police officers to be "fried like bacon" or for a dude to actually advocate for people to punch someone at a political rally. All you have to do is look at all the hope the Bernie Sanders campaign brought for people like us to understand that it's possible to enjoy times such as these. That won't change with a head-to-head with Trump and Clinton. The enthusiasm the Trump campaign has is fueled on hatred. The lack of enthusiasm and falling in line that Clinton has is mostly preventative of the other candidate and not so much about the future and good solutions. --- Now, in about a week, the Vice-Presidential debate will take place between Gov. Mike Pence and Sen. Tim Kaine. Pence is Donald Trump's running mate, while Kaine will be representing the Clinton camp. Right now, I would give the advantage to Senator Kaine because of his previous career as a lawyer and the fact that he seems to have more energy than the Indiana governor. The Eye of the Storm - How Mike Pence Wins the Debate Tell 'em "how" it is. - The good thing about Pence being on the stage instead of Trump is that he is much more measured than he is and he also has experience of governing that is similar to that of the presidency to talk about what Trump will be able to do and more importantly - how he will be able to do it. This is majorly important, because nobody really has an inside view of Trump's policies and I don't know if Senator Kaine would be able to dismiss or refute all of it if Pence is able to lay it all out. This would be a huge victory for the Donald if his running mate can avoid answering for Trump's conduct and instead provide something new to talk about in the news cycle. Counter - I highly expect Senator Kaine to piggyback off of Hillary's success in the first debate and continue to throw bombs at Trump's actions and quotes. The moderator this time is from CBS - albeit an Asian-American woman (Elaine Quijano). This should mean that questioning and pressure from Quijano would be less favorable to the Democratic representative due to less inherent bias against conservatives - and conversely more heated against Kaine in turn by default - meaning Hillary isn't out of the woods for her own mishaps either. If Pence wants to erase Trump's inability to take advantage of opportunities, he needs to be able to fight back at Kaine and drag Clinton into the negative spotlight as well. A "draw" in this debate will favor the challenger as opposed to the incumbent. Yes, We Can - Back in 2004, Barack Obama led a campaign with that slogan as the challenging party's nominee. What does it have to do with Pence? This was tagged often with the phrase "Hope and Change" - and the Republican Party needs both of those to energize it's ticket this year. Governor Pence has an opportunity to be the "Hope" to Trump's "Change" and be more optimistic and statesmanlike than the other name on the ticket. This would seal the upset for the Trump camp - Americans, not just the Trumpers, feeling good about this campaign. Objection! - How Tim Kaine Wins the Debate Fire Away - As mentioned before - if Sen Kaine follows up Hillary's thorough prosecution of her opponent with the same, and Pence falls into the trap of having to defend his running mate a majority of the debate, it will be smooth sailing for the Clinton camp. How can I help you make a purchase? - Remember when Hillary didn't get many chances to pivot off of her aggressive successful shellacking of Trump to making her own presidential run look good? Something tells me Pence may not be as impolite as Trump. Kaine should not only wear his war helmet, but also his business suit. His running mate would really appreciate a good word. Negative Nellie - There had better not be an upswing of positive opinion about Trump or his campaign, Tim. - Hillary. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Swimming95 Posted September 29, 2016 Share Posted September 29, 2016 I definitely agree with most of that. At least what I'll say is that in past elections, I may have disagreed with the other parties but it seemed like for the most part they were within the realm of reason. My problem is that in this election, you have a candidate who is running on hatred, racism, sexism, anti-lgbtq, anti-muslim, anti-mexican, general xenophobia, etc. If there is a majority in the senate, a lot of those measures would come to pass which would be devastating for those communities for almost decades in the form of the supreme court. This is also ignoring how much damage a president can have with building trust of other nations. At the end of the day, one of the two major party candidates will be elected. How I view it, I would really prefer that hatred not being elected and in that vein probably become slightly more dismissive than I would normally be in the off years. In addition, I'm mostly trying to downplay them in opposition to other people (not you) blowing the charges out of proportion. For the most part, the democratic party moves to the right whenever they lose big and move to the left when they win. That was how Bill Clinton got elected after years of other progressive candidates. I'm nervous that if the dems lose this year, they move back to the right after one of the most progressive platforms in a while. I'm happy to continue this conversation over skype or PM. ------ For the VP debate, I think there is another way that Kaine can win over Pence. Pence has been one of the most anti-lgbt govenors and can be really hammered on his records. Kaine might not have the most progressive views but in comparison the difference is really stark. Bringing up his record as governor can really hurt Pence. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chase Posted September 29, 2016 Author Share Posted September 29, 2016 I'm not sure about Pence's own record being a liability (using the example you brought up) mostly because I'm not sure America is 100% "all-in" on LGBTQ support. Taking the safe bet then and assuming only liberal or center-left leaning independents will care deeply about anti-LGBT legislation and actions, means that Pence won't be damaged all that much - unless of course, he follows his partner and spends a bunch of time defending himself as opposed to pivoting. Not a dismissal at all. It very well could hurt Gov. Pence if he comes off as someone who puts his own record before the goals of his ticket. However, He isn't running for vice-president of this forum - where most people here are accepting and encouraging of the LGBTQ community. Simply standing his ground quickly and moving on could energize conservative and center-right independents where say, religious freedom is an issue of concern. Looking at America as a whole, religion and sexual orientation freedoms dangerously overlap. It's the main reason things like clerks denying people marriage licenses or people refuse to make a couple a wedding cake "because of their beliefs" happen. As a Christian who has talked to a lot of people about these kinds of issues specifically over the past two years, I can safely say the reason (most) Christians are not gung-ho about same-sex marriage isn't because they genuinely hate people who are homosexual. It's because they simply do not have the same definition of "marriage" the federal government does. Therefore, they don't recognize the union of two homosexual people as a "marriage" at all. All that to say - because those two constituencies are bound by these recurring conflicts. There's a chance Pence stands his ground and does quite well - just as there is he does so and it hurts him. The bigger thing Pence should worry about though in specific to this kind of stuff? Transgender issues. That one could definitely be a problem. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Swimming95 Posted September 29, 2016 Share Posted September 29, 2016 At least to give context for why I think the LGBT record can be a liability. I need to double check the background of most third-party / undecideds but it seems like some of the targeted demographics are majority in favor. Some of the breakdowns don't break down center left / center right but I also don't know the proportions: http://www.pewforum.org/2016/05/12/changing-attitudes-on-gay-marriage/ http://www.pewforum.org/2016/04/08/public-opinion-on-abortion-2/ http://www.people-press.org/2015/04/07/a-deep-dive-into-party-affiliation/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chase Posted September 29, 2016 Author Share Posted September 29, 2016 I didn't need to turn to Pew to understand that acceptance is steadily rising as a whole - but the data has a few things worth mentioning. Conservatives are still very opposed, not even braking 30 percent and beginning to trend downward, despite acceptance everywhere else. This is troubling for Clinton and Kaine because this benefits down-ballot races for Republicans looking to make anti-LGBT community legislative decisions and essentially ensures Pence has something worth standing for - Conservative voters still not sure about Trump. The good news for the Clinton camp is that 61 percent of independent voters are supportive of same-sex marriage. This would mean that at best, Pence has to be quick to make his point and change the subject if he wants to compete for those 61 percenters. Dwelling on his own record - again - will turn a majority of independents off. Most of the demographics are only slightly in favor at this point in time. The trends are certainly upward and don't have any sign - outside of conservatives - of slowing, but in the current time period, there's not sufficient numbers for Pence to worry about offending mass majorities of independents. Quote 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.