The 2016 Debate Thread

[tigermud]

I think she really wanted you to remember "Trumped up trickle down economics". She said it twice. I think a 3rd time, as an interruption, would have done the trick. It's not like she was unwilling to interrupt him, and the 2nd time she said it, his smirk made me think she should keep doing it.

I would have replied I don't think trickle down tax increase economics work either. It just drives more business away looking for more of that cheap labor you support so often through all of those terrible trade deals, Ms Nafta TPP

 

[TheVictors]

I can't see Lester without thinking of my wife joking many years ago when she saw him on MSNBC and said, "and we're not going to fall for the banana in the tailpipe!"

 

[Thumb]

So CNN says Hillary won the debate everyone else says Trump, including Micheal Moore apparently. idk I thought over all he went soft on her and she did a good job keeping him on defense most of the night. He could have done a better job with some of those answers, like yes and hey what took him so long and since when is a crime to trust but verify, I wasn't the only one by a long shot that had the same questions but I am the one that forced the issue and got answers.

I don't think the format suited him well either, with no audience cheering or booing for 90% of it, he sounded loud at times almost shouting like.. I completely agree with a few things he said, she does have more experiences but a lot that has been bad experiences and wrong decisions. I can't really recall anything she said, just kept wondering where those yellow stars where on her outfit. blinding red china red.. I honestly believe their is a good chance we end up in a war with Russia if she wins, over Syria. It's not good folks. not good at all. But hey whatever on to the next one..

Everyone else? Get back to reality.

Even FOX News is saying Republicans believe Hillary won the debate. Only Newt is really saying Trump won, and let's face it, Newt is a moron.

 

[Spartanmack]

Yeah, but I agree with what dethroh responded in #54 - not bringing up those issues you referred to is 90% on Trump - they were both talking about shit they weren't asked about all night.

90% sounds a bit high but it's not what matters so Ill give it to you guys. but it was 100% on Holt that all the tough questions were attacking Trumps positions or things he said and Hillary got a pass on anything controversial. I also don't recall him really challenging Hillary other maybe repeating a question when she obfuscated and went off topic. he seemed to challenge Trump's answers a lot more.

but I don't think that's what threw him off. I think he got more frustrated with Clinton's answers and haughtiness than anything Holt did.

 

[Thumb]

90% sounds a bit high but it's not what matters so Ill give it to you guys. but it was 100% on Holt that all the tough questions were attacking Trumps positions or things he said and Hillary got a pass on anything controversial. I also don't recall him really challenging Hillary other maybe repeating a question when she obfuscated and went off topic. he seemed to challenge Trump's answers a lot more.

but I don't think that's what threw him off. I think he got more frustrated with Clinton's answers and haughtiness than anything Holt did.

From what I heard of it he only really challenged Trumps answers when he contradicted a fact.

As to what you posted before about Holt not asking about Obamacare, Immigration, Syria, Benghazi or the Clinton Foundation, I'll give you the first 3...they are legit topics, the last 2 are not. Benghazi has been scrutinized as far as possible, it adds nothing to the debate which has not been done to death already. The Clinton Foundation is only an issue to the conservatives who are trying to imply scandal. That said, asking Trump about the whole "birther" thing was a waste of time too. The horse is dead, time to stop beating him.

 

[TheVictors]

Of course Holt is a registered Republican so his taking it easy on Trump is because he really wants Ted Cruz to rise from the ashes.

 

[JScottWriter]

Why are they so mean to Trump? Presidents never have to answer hard questions.

 

[biggunsbob]

Trump was not prepared at all and it showed. He faded as the night went on and was mostly incoherent.

 

[Michchamp]

Why are they so mean to Trump? Presidents never have to answer hard questions.

I know right!?! And Hillary prepared for this. She prepared! What is that all about? And at times she contradicted things Trump said and even argued against him. And Lester Holt allowed all this to go on. I mean this was supposed to be a "debate" not a debate. The bias against Trump is obvious.

- paraphrasing actual complaints from Republicans/Trump supporters I read yesterday.

 

[Michchamp]

this is simply not true, you can argue whether stop and frisk had anything to do with it, that's not my point, but violent crime is up nearly 4% nationally and 1.3% in NYC with increases in murder (+5.7%), rape (+109.7%), robbery (+2.2%) and aggravated assault (-2.9%). In 2015 the state began using an expanded definition of rape that matches the FBI's definition, so obviously that number is misleading. But so is the overall violent crime increase of just 1.3%. With aggravated assault being the most common crime by far by 2x the next most common, the low increase is masking an remarkable increase in other serious violent crimes.

http://data.newsday.com/long-island/data/crime/new-york-city-crime-rate/#o:c=rape;d=false;|

hey tell it to the NY Post... that's where I got the claim from.

 

[Spartanmack]

and it's not! not only was it held to be unconstitutional in federal court, but it didn't help. even being as charitable as possible to the policy (like these assholes are), it was banned and crime hasn't increased or anything like that. in fact, crime in NYC is lower now across the board.

Trump is full of shit.

this is simply not true, you can argue whether stop and frisk had anything to do with it, that's not my point, but violent crime is up nearly 4% nationally and 1.3% in NYC in 2015, De Blasio's first year in office, with increases in murder (+5.7%), rape (+109.7%), robbery (+2.2%) and aggravated assault (-2.9%). In 2015 the state began using an expanded definition of rape that matches the FBI's definition, so obviously that number is misleading. But so is the overall violent crime increase of just 1.3%. With aggravated assault being the most common crime by far (2x the next most common), the low increase is masking an remarkable increase in other serious violent crimes.

http://data.newsday.com/long-island/data/crime/new-york-city-crime-rate/#o:c=rape;d=false;|

 

[Spartanmack]

hey tell it to the NY Post... that's where I got the claim from.

how about you take it up with the post. I'm just setting the record straight.

 

[Gulo Blue]

The Clinton Foundation is only an issue to the conservatives who are trying to imply scandal.

I think it looks like a legit conflict of interest. The New York Times isn't generally considered especially conservative.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/24/u...s-pressed-for-control-of-uranium-company.html

 

[Michchamp]

this is simply not true, you can argue whether stop and frisk had anything to do with it, that's not my point, but violent crime is up nearly 4% nationally and 1.3% in NYC in 2015, De Blasio's first year in office, with increases in murder (+5.7%), rape (+109.7%), robbery (+2.2%) and aggravated assault (-2.9%). In 2015 the state began using an expanded definition of rape that matches the FBI's definition, so obviously that number is misleading. But so is the overall violent crime increase of just 1.3%. With aggravated assault being the most common crime by far (2x the next most common), the low increase is masking an remarkable increase in other serious violent crimes.

http://data.newsday.com/long-island/data/crime/new-york-city-crime-rate/#o:c=rape;d=false;|

here's a better article that includes context as well as a graph that coordinates stops with crime rates. even before judge Schiedlin declared it was unconstitutional & DeBlasio formally ended it, rated of stops had declined significantly, as well as crimes. If random stops-and-frisks were that important, you'd expect crime rates to be increasing during the same period.

a minor uptick a year after the policy ended isn't significant.

snopes also addressed this, noting the policy did not affect crime.

the Washington Post and Atlantic found the same thing.

 

[Spartanmack]

here's a better article that includes context as well as a graph that coordinates stops with crime rates. even before judge Schiedlin declared it was unconstitutional & DeBlasio formally ended it, rated of stops had declined significantly, as well as crimes. If random stops-and-frisks were that important, you'd expect crime rates to be increasing during the same period.

a minor uptick a year after the policy ended isn't significant.

snopes also addressed this, noting the policy did not affect crime.

the Washington Post and Atlantic found the same thing.

There you go trying to peg me as a supporter of stop and frisk, instead of what I actually did, which was put facts to your lies. Have fun!

 

[Michchamp]

There you go trying to peg me as a supporter of stop and frisk, instead of what I actually did, which was put facts to your lies. Have fun!

no, what you did was dispute one (1) point (among many) I made in my post, misleadingly claiming the whole thing was untrue by citing a single source for some statistics - completely devoid of context - which I countered by posting several additional sources that add context and unambiguously support my original point.

It's your version of "arguing" i.e. saying a bunch of shit in hopes that people reading it are dumb enough to believe you actually disproved a point. And then obsessively getting the last word in so you can keep up the farce that you "won" because the other person stopped responding once they realize they had better things to do than engage in a shouting match with a 2-year-old...

 

[tinselwolverine]

This is pretty funny...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=we8OnvlWSHg

Did any of you guys look up her nude pics on the internet...? They are all from when she's thin...I guess her weight has fluctuated over the last two decades...

 

[tinselwolverine]

 

[byco42]

I would pay good $$$ to see Tinsel debate both Trump and Clinton at the same time.

 

[tinselwolverine]

I would pay good $$$ to see Tinsel debate both Trump and Clinton at the same time.

That is very flattering...thank you...

It's going to be difficult for me at this point to get to the qualifying 15% in the polls, though...