Nov 2023 Mod notice:
There may be other, more specific, threads about some aspects of US politics, but this one tends to act as a hub for all sorts of related news and information, so it's usually one of the busiest OTC threads.
If you're new to OTC, it's worth reading the Introduction to On-Topic Conversations
and the On-Topic Conversations debate guidelines
before posting here.
Rumor-based, fear-mongering and/or inflammatory statements that damage the quality of the thread will be thumped. Off-topic posts will also be thumped. Repeat offenders may be suspended.
If time spent moderating this thread remains a distraction from moderation of the wiki itself, the thread will need to be locked. We want to avoid that, so please follow the forum rules
when posting here.
In line with the general forum rules, 'gravedancing' is prohibited here. If you're celebrating someone's death or hoping that they die, your post will get thumped. This rule applies regardless of what the person you're discussing has said or done.
Edited by Mrph1 on Nov 30th 2023 at 11:03:59 AM
I'm genuinely curious here. Trump started speaking over the moderator and interrupting Clinton and other tantrum-ish behavior in the first third of the debate. He mellowed out in the middle then started "Wrong! Wrong! Wrong!"-ing and other tantrum behavior in the last third. Why do you think he was stronger in the first half?
That's the only part of the debate where he was actually talking something that comes close to resembling policy. Then you have the opening minute or two when he actually sounded borderline presidential, where the crowd started cheering for him, and where Clinton's issues got the most focus.
edited 26th Sep '16 8:28:50 PM by CaptainCapsase
It was a strong start for him in that he managed to not be so trumpy for like 20 minutes and that is pretty close to a win for him. Can we just all acknowledge that Clinton brought the fire tonight? I really didn't expect her to be the one throwing shade at every opportunity but damn feisty Hillary needs to show up more often.
Also his mini-fucking meltdown was hilarious. "she's been so mean to her and I could be so like super mean but I'm not gonna!" It was like a fucking toddlers idea of being witty.
Is using "Julian Assange is a Hillary butt plug" an acceptable signature quote?
She did about as well as I'd expect; reasonably well. But the real question I think is whether or not either of them will get undecided voters to jump ship. Trump certainly won't, but I don't know if Clinton really did much to sell herself as opposed to tearing down Trump, and given he didn't say anything unusually horrible by Trump standards tonight, I intuitively doubt he's going to lose many voters.
edited 26th Sep '16 8:36:00 PM by CaptainCapsase
![]()
I would hope they would, considering the network's political alignment. Once again, we'll have to wait for polls. I fully expect the sound bites to be dominated largely by the candidates insulting each other rather than by Clinton's policy positions, and though 100 million people did indeed tune in to the debates, how many of those people had already made their decisions?
While I regard it as implausible that Trump will gain support from this debate, I don't think there's enough data yet to conclude Clinton will necessarily make major gains either.
edited 26th Sep '16 8:41:07 PM by CaptainCapsase
That's what I would intuitively expect, though it should be said that I also have a sinking feeling that the undecided voters simply will end up not voting; neither candidate showed us something new tonight, and the undecided voters might simply go third party or change their minds about voting.
edited 26th Sep '16 8:43:17 PM by CaptainCapsase
While not representative of the public at large both reddit/twitter seem to be in agreement that Clinton won
Is using "Julian Assange is a Hillary butt plug" an acceptable signature quote?It's live on CBS, but it's about over now. It'll be on his You Tube channel in a couple hours anyway.
"If you spend all your heart / On something that has died / You are not alive and that can't be a life"Colbert? Live tv. Won't be on You Tube till sometime tomorrow at the earliest.
@First third of debate: I don't really have that much expertise on economic stuff either, but it only takes minimal understanding of that kind of stuff to see the holes in Trump's economic/trade stuff. He kept railing on NAFTA and stuff, and while I don't really know all the nuts and bolts of its effects, I vaguely remember reading some journal article thing some time ago that outlined some of its workings. I don't remember all the details and numbers and stuff but I think it overall argued that trade agreement in particular provided for overall positive economic growth for parties involved (though I think it was more significant for Mexico than the U.S.). Generally trade deals are positive overall except to those who might be more directly impacted, as they allow for more efficient allocation of manpower within the countries involved and can provide job growth/cheap goods/more goods since freer trade allows businesses to acquire more cash with which to acquire more labor. Trying to renegotiate stuff so it's "more beneficial" for America would likely clutter stuff and produce ill will/complications, which might cause reduced investments.
Also, the "trade deficit" thing that toupee man keep going on about isn't inherently a bad thing, as national debt and stuff doesn't work like personal debt, and us owing stuff to other countries (and businesses/things within our own country) means they are invested in us. Trying to do tributary stuff would probably cause partners to look elsewhere or something like that, which will reduce business and stuff and reduce our economic standing. People more affected by this or those worried about "people taking our jobs" probably won't see this, even though economic/job growth could potentially work both ways, so long as there are mechanisms to cushion the process as resource/manpower reallocation occurs.
I don't really know all that much, and someone else could probably explain stuff better than me, though these are kinda my thoughts on that matter in particular. I used to be terrified of the TPP, though after reading into stuff more, looking outside of the people screaming about copyright stuff and looking into its working, my mind's kinda changed on the matter of trade. Don't really have any sources to back my thoughts up with though.
I was writing a longer reply but lost it to something glitching. Basic answer: the problems with the TPP come down to specific bad provisions, not the idea of trade deals in general (for the most part). The provisions on internet copyright enforcement are one - they're a rebranded version of SOPA/PIPA, bills that were shouted down only by concentrated pu,blic opposition. The other are provisions that would expand the ability of corperations to sue foreign governments for things they say hurt their profits, which is a pretty big can of worms.

Don't get me wrong, I believe Clinton is much more likely than Trump to gain from this debate, but it might very well be that the polls don't go anywhere, since this debate hasn't shown the electorate anything we haven't already seen. Trump was his usual self, Clinton was her usual self.
edited 26th Sep '16 8:29:01 PM by CaptainCapsase