Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 sebster wrote:


Consider Trump’s statements on trade in the debate. He got up there and started talking about Mexico’s VAT as an unfair trade barrier. Now, it isn’t fair to expect the average American to understand that a VAT is levied on both domestic goods and imports, and so isn’t a trade barrier in any sense. But it is incredible that Trump could receive trade advice from economic experts and still believe that nonsense. And it’s even more incredible that not a single conservative commentator anywhere in the country has picked up on such a simple error in the hours since the debate.

That's something I pointed out earlier. The morning after the debate, of the four major news sites I checked (CNN, Fox,NBC, BBC), only Fox didn't have some sort of fact checking article linked on the front page for the debate.

CNN has realsed an actual scientific poll on the debate.
62%/27% to Clinton. Didn't think it would be so high.
http://www.cnn.com/2016/09/27/politics/hillary-clinton-donald-trump-debate-poll/

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
CNN has realsed an actual scientific poll on the debate.
62%/27% to Clinton. Didn't think it would be so high.
http://www.cnn.com/2016/09/27/politics/hillary-clinton-donald-trump-debate-poll/

That seems right.

Hillary didn't hurt herself in any meaningful way. She played this as a seasoned veteran.

Trump is the newbie here and is getting crushed.

 LordofHats wrote:

 Ouze wrote:
In a particularly low moment, Rudy Giuliani is saying Hillary Clinton is too stupid to be president because she stayed with Bill Clinton after the Monica Lewinsky affair.

classy

Well, this is the guy who continues to profess the virtues of publicly searching someone's anal cavity because shut up and stop being SOFT ON CRIME

He kept us safe during a Bush presidency, when no terrorist attacks happened in the USA. We can trust the guy.

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
CNN has realsed an actual scientific poll on the debate.
62%/27% to Clinton. Didn't think it would be so high.
http://www.cnn.com/2016/09/27/politics/hillary-clinton-donald-trump-debate-poll/

Trump doesn't watch CNN anyway, apparently, probably because it doesn't fit his narrative.

Losing a debate doesn't matter much. Look at Romney v. Obama. Romney was considered the winner of the first debate, but Obama still cleaned his clock in the Electoral College.

The real trick is, Trump doesn't look like he has managed to flip enough states. He seems to be doing good in Ohio and FL, and those are key, but not enough. I will be shocked if the EC map looks much different than Romney v Obama.

 skyth wrote:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/larry-womack/stop-pretending-you-dont-_b_12191766.html?section=women&

“Why do people hate Hillary Clinton so much?”

Is it because of partisanship?

Or a hard-fought primary?

Maybe, NBC once suggested, it’s because “she’s not a train wreck.”

Funny how the answers seem to be everything but the obvious.

It's a good article that makes a good point of showing how ridiculous and baseless the charges against Clinton are, but I'm not sure about its conclusion. I mean sure, I have no doubt that sexism plays a part in the hate of Clinton, but I don't think it's the whole answer. Because 8 years ago we were in this exact same spot, with Republicans leveling some extraordinarily ridiculous claims about Obama, and people then were happy to conclude it was about race. Race no doubt played a part but people should start picking up on the pattern here. Because the right also hated Bill Clinton, and Al Gore, and probably also John Kerry but I don't know for sure because 2004 is kind of blur. They just hate the Democrat candidate every time, regardless of race, sex, or anything else. The Republicans and their incredibly gullible foot soldiers will line up every four years (every two years really), and go through a kind of collective ritual where they all convince themselves that the Democrats and their presidential candidate are just the most horrible thing ever. Its just how their party operates.

The hate for Hillary Clinton has been stronger - but I think its for the simple reason that the hate has to be this strong, because the Republicans are trying to convince themselves to hold their collective noses and vote for Trump.

The other part of this is the left, a large part of which has convinced itself that Clinton is horrible. This is because a large portion of the left have almost zero understanding and zero interest in real world political realities. They want to talk about how liberal they personally are, and how amazing things are in Europe. They don't actually have any interest in effective and achievable political goals, their point is to feel righteous and pure in their own politics. Supporting an actual presidential candidate, and then his successor involves admitting that politics is an imperfect, often ugly game. These same idiots didn't turn up in 2000, having convinced themselves that Gore and Bush were no different from each other.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 redleger wrote:
No issues man. Just seemed like the usual thing where for some reason statements of Clinton's wrong doing seem to be ignore, but Trumps seem to be highlighted. Its why I was careful to point out why both candidates are generally thought poorly of.

This is the opposite of reality. There has been daily coverage of Clinton's inane email thing for years. As emails have been released, the media has piled endless speculation and innuendo on to every release, making it sound as if all kinds of sordid things are being revealed, despite the actual content of the emails showing nothing at all, nothing that was even inappropriate, let alone actually illegal. Benghazi had constant media coverage for each of the dozen odd investigations, with reporters happily repeating every bit of idle speculation from Republicans, with absolutely no requirement of evidence.

Meanwhile Trump gets caught handing over cash to DAs who are just about to decide on whether to investigate his University scam, and it turns out the cash payment was illegal and improperly declared to hide it, and it barely gets a mention in any media. While the Clinton Foundation has been investigated endlessly, and despite lots of stories implying there is something wrong, there has been zero improper conduct uncovered. Meanwhile Trump has been found spending money from his charity on personal items, and it barely gets mentioned in the press.

There has been an incredible double standard in the media, but it is the opposite of the one you want to believe in.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Tannhauser42 wrote:
That's something I pointed out earlier. The morning after the debate, of the four major news sites I checked (CNN, Fox,NBC, BBC), only Fox didn't have some sort of fact checking article linked on the front page for the debate.

It goes beyond just failing to fact check the debate. Trickle down economics is 35 years old, and there's never been one bit of GDP growth attributed to any high income tax cut or capital gains tax cut. And yet it remains a major policy for every Republican presidential candidate. Tax cuts were the key element of Dole's 1996 campaign, it was the major domestic aim and 'achievement' of the Bush administration, McCain campaigned with a fething flat tax, and Romney wanted across the board tax cuts, but still with a particular focus on company taxes and capital gains.

Now Trump comes along and he's actually cranked it up another notch, with ridiculous tax cuts for the rich. It's the same nonsense every time, and it doesn't seem to matter one bit that Reagan's and Bush's tax cuts didn't produce the growth expected, and revenue was hammered far more than conservative modellers thought they would be. In the face of two time failure, the party just believes in trickle down a little harder.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Easy E wrote:
Losing a debate doesn't matter much. Look at Romney v. Obama. Romney was considered the winner of the first debate, but Obama still cleaned his clock in the Electoral College.

Did you read my earlier post? I mentioned this exact thing - debate scoring is about 'performance', who looked the most presidential, and who stumbled over an answer. Any kind of polling benefit from that fades pretty quickly. Giving a couple of good zingers on election night certainly isn't what anyone is voting for in November.

But the debates still matter, because they can reinforce greater campaign themes. Bill Clinton fantastic 1992 debate showed he had an ability to communicate with ordinary voters in a way that GHW Bush didn't - that lasted until November. And Romney's win in the first debate in 2012 was largely because he turned up on debate night with a totally new set of policies, he swung back hard to the centre and it threw Obama for a loop. This meant Romney performed better on the night and got a nice polling bump, but it undermined his main campaign messages, it did his campaign harm in the long run.

I'm not sure yet whether anything from that first debate will last until November. These things often take a few days to become clear.

I'm kind of surprised that Trump's answer on cyber security hasn't gotten more coverage. It really was the most incredible thing;
"We came in with the internet, we came up with the internet, and I think Secretary Clinton and myself would agree very much when you look at what ISIS is doing with the internet – they’re beating us at our own game. ISIS. So we have to get very, very tough on cyber and cyber warfare – it is a- it is a huge problem. I have a son, he’s 10 years old, he has computers, he’s so good with these computers, it’s unbelievable. The security aspect of cyber is very, very tough and maybe it’s hardly doable, but I will say we are not doing the job we should be doing, but that’s true throughout our whole governmental society. We have so many things we have to do better, Lester, and certainly cyber is one of them.”

Got a question I hope one of the knowledgeable members can answer. I heard on the radio the house and Senate plan to override president Obama's veto on allowing Americans to sue Saudi Arabia. My question is how would Americans be able to sue a country. What's to stop Saudi Arabia from telling them to pack sand.

yellowfever wrote:
Got a question I hope one of the knowledgeable members can answer. I heard on the radio the house and Senate plan to override president Obama's veto on allowing Americans to sue Saudi Arabia. My question is how would Americans be able to sue a country. What's to stop Saudi Arabia from telling them to pack sand.

Any such court decision would largely be just symbolic, but it could somehow be possible that any Saudi owned assets in the U.S.could be seized and used to pay it.

The problem, however, is this is akin to opening Pandora's Box. Imagine all the shady stuff that just the CIA has done in the last 50 years that people in other countries could sue us for because of this law. Or, for something more recent, when we accidentally bombed that hospital being run by Doctors Without Borders.

That was going to be my next question.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/senate-poised-override-obama-veto-9-11-legislation-071325323.html

Well it was passed and that was a terrible idea

Why?

 whembly wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Trump is admired for lying all the time about stupid bs so simple that you would have to be a kindergarten child to not spot the lies.

Clinton is hated for small numbers of evasions and half-truths, that after millions of $ of legal investigation add up to nothing much.

You haven't been paying attention if you believe Clinton's faults amounts to "small numbers of evasions and half-truth".

And you haven't been paying attention if you believe the millions of dollars and thousands of hours of several different investigations have turned up anything of any significance.

It turned up felonies.

 Frazzled wrote:
It turned up felonies.

Did it? To date she hasnt been charged with anything.

 Frazzled wrote:
Why?

Because it was directly opposed by the pentagon and opens up us to be sued in turn. Unless you think we have a squeaky clean record and have nothing to fear

 WrentheFaceless wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
It turned up felonies.

Did it? To date she hasnt been charged with anything.

Absence of charging does not equal absence of crime. The rich and powerful don't generally get prosecuted unless they impact other rich.

 Frazzled wrote:

 WrentheFaceless wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
It turned up felonies.

Did it? To date she hasnt been charged with anything.

Absence of charging does not equal absence of crime. The rich and powerful don't generally get prosecuted unless they impact other rich.

Is it a felony though without charging an actual due process of those charges. You're the lawyer, can they honestly be called felonies if no one was charged and convicted for them?

 Frazzled wrote:

 WrentheFaceless wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
It turned up felonies.

Did it? To date she hasnt been charged with anything.

Absence of charging does not equal absence of crime. The rich and powerful don't generally get prosecuted unless they impact other rich.

Nor, strangely enough, does the absence of charging denote guilt.

 Frazzled wrote:
It turned up felonies.

are you talking about the emails or benghazi?

Benghazi turned up nothing against hillary or we'd never hear the end of it.

the emails turned up many more elected officials currently doing the same thing. skip to around 6:30 for the email stuff and the others who are known to have/had done the same thing.

 Frazzled wrote:

 WrentheFaceless wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
It turned up felonies.

Did it? To date she hasnt been charged with anything.

Absence of charging does not equal absence of crime. The rich and powerful don't generally get prosecuted unless they impact other rich.

Actually, in our system of jurisprudence it does. A felony not charged is no felony at all. Due process, presumption of innocence, and all that.

 Tannhauser42 wrote:

yellowfever wrote:
Got a question I hope one of the knowledgeable members can answer. I heard on the radio the house and Senate plan to override president Obama's veto on allowing Americans to sue Saudi Arabia. My question is how would Americans be able to sue a country. What's to stop Saudi Arabia from telling them to pack sand.

Any such court decision would largely be just symbolic, but it could somehow be possible that any Saudi owned assets in the U.S.could be seized and used to pay it.

The problem, however, is this is akin to opening Pandora's Box. Imagine all the shady stuff that just the CIA has done in the last 50 years that people in other countries could sue us for because of this law. Or, for something more recent, when we accidentally bombed that hospital being run by Doctors Without Borders.

I support this measure exactly because it will allow the US to be sued in turn. We should be held accountable for our actions as much as anyone else. Naturally there will be a lot of BS accusations going around but that's what the actual court is for.

 jmurph wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 WrentheFaceless wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
It turned up felonies.

Did it? To date she hasnt been charged with anything.

Absence of charging does not equal absence of crime. The rich and powerful don't generally get prosecuted unless they impact other rich.

Actually, in our system of jurisprudence it does. A felony not charged is no felony at all. Due process, presumption of innocence, and all that.

You're forgetting the Kangaroo Court that Bridgegate Christie held at the Republican convention.

sirlynchmob wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
It turned up felonies.

are you talking about the emails or benghazi?

Benghazi turned up nothing against hillary or we'd never hear the end of it.

the emails turned up many more elected officials currently doing the same thing. skip to around 6:30 for the email stuff and the others who are known to have/had done the same thing.

Trafficking in secret information on unsecured servers. I don't care if other people did it.
Also obstruction of justice for destroying the other emails specifically in a manner not recoverable.

I see, so it's only a felony because hillary did it.

I have a hard time seeing the felony here when it appears to be a common practice and legal.

sirlynchmob wrote:
I see, so it's only a felony because hillary did it.

NO....I am saying she wasn't charged because she's Hillary CLinton. Others have been.

I have a hard time seeing the felony here when it appears to be a common practice and legal.

Its not legal. Commonplace is irrelevant. If her and Powell are the only ones thats not common place. If he violated the law charge him too.

sirlynchmob wrote:
I see, so it's only a felony because hillary did it.

No. Other people are in jail now for doing a fraction of what Clinton and her staff has done.

I have a hard time seeing the felony here when it appears to be a common practice and legal.

It does happen... but that doesn't mean it's legal. Just ask Gen. Patreous or the seaman snapping a photo on a submarine.

Didn't Petraeus knowingly give his mistress stuff she shouldn't have had, and haven't this been explained to you multiple times before whembly?

She knowingly had secret watermarks removed from documents and then sent.

We have no idea of what the majority of the emails did because she destroyed the evidence.

sirlynchmob wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
It turned up felonies.

are you talking about the emails or benghazi?

Benghazi turned up nothing against hillary or we'd never hear the end of it.

Benghazi turned up nothing against hillary or we'd never hear the end of it.

or we'd never hear the end of it.

never hear the end of it

Please...please don't make that the metric for Benghazi investigations turning up something...