I think so too. Any rational human being can see that in my opinion.
She also got lots of applause thorughout the debate.
I feel like she won the debate, but we will know tomorrow.
He think she forcefully held herself back a lot to not play his game. It is what every of her advisors will have told her.
The times in which she engaged in his nonsense were either things which i would not have let uncommented either or at least not numerous.
I think exspecially in the end she gained a lot of ground on him (when he incoherently rambled nonsense for a long time and she just said 'whew!').
--- Double Post Merged, , Original Post Date: ---
I must say tho that i was looking forward to hear trump call her 'crooked'.
But he did not deliver
Well she is winning. My point is that this whole 'oh my god we can only choose between unlikeable people' is not really accurate.
Clinton is disliked exactly when people throw shit at her. Simply because she is the longest standing high profile politician and a woman, thus you can just fire away.
But it isn't really. I mean, that being said every election is sort of a meme at this point, but it's actually true this cycle.
So people dislike her because people bring up her past? And they dislike her as much as they do because she's a woman as well? Isn't that the definition of conjecture?
Well, she held what could be considered homophobic positions in the past, sure. And she has long been in favor of interventionist policy. But contextually, it matters who she's being contrast with, I guess.
--- Double Post Merged, , Original Post Date: ---
Trump is just a parrot-ape hybrid in a suit. Talking about what he vomits up only seems constructive because he has support...but in reality it might be the most efficient waste of time lately.
Clinton isn't even really that great at debating...but jesus does Trump set the bar low.
Well, not attack in a sense of criticize Trump's policies or even attacking about what he says. It's the name-calling that I'm talking about (I might've missed some, but she did used his name to downgrade both him and his economic policy... whatever that might be).
But yeah, after watching the debate, I firmly believe that Hillary has this election in the bag, especially his answer to the Moderator's question about the outcome. If that doesn't fucking nuke his campaign off the ground, then I don't know what will.
Well, not attack in a sense of criticize Trump's policies or even attacking about what he says. It's the name-calling that I'm talking about (I might've missed some, but she did used his name to downgrade both him and his economic policy... whatever that might be).
But yeah, after watching the debate, I firmly believe that Hillary has this election in the bag, especially his answer to the Moderator's question about the outcome. If that doesn't fucking nuke his campaign off the ground, then I don't know what will.
Well, my criticism there would be that he did not quite answer the question. The moderator there asked him whether he would accept it if the voters elected hillary. And he answered that if she was elected he would support her. Why would he support her? They are political enemies who have virtually no common ground on policy.
Dunno, the name calling between them wasn't that bad. The trumped up trickle down thing was good IMO. At least a significant improvement over that time she posted a video of her chilling while drinking something on twitter (followed by millennials of the world collectively cringing). And trump did not call her "crooked hillary" which IMO works to his advantage since he didn't use kindergarten level insults on a presidential debate.
But it isn't really. I mean, that being said every election is sort of a meme at this point, but it's actually true this cycle.
So people dislike her because people bring up her past? And they dislike her as much as they do because she's a woman as well? Isn't that the definition of conjecture?
Well, she held what could be considered homophobic positions in the past, sure. And she has long been in favor of interventionist policy. But contextually, it matters who she's being contrast with, I guess.
--- Double Post Merged, , Original Post Date: ---
Trump is just a parrot-ape hybrid in a suit. Talking about what he vomits up only seems constructive because he has support...but in reality it might be the most efficient waste of time lately.
Clinton isn't even really that great at debating...but jesus does Trump set the bar low.
Well, to be fair most of what is brought up against hillary is about her emails, bhengazi and the foundation. The emails, which are nowhere near as big a deal it is made out to be. Bhengazi, which is not even 0.000000001% of a thing. And the foundation, which as john oliver pointed out, is not THAT bad of a situation (and unlike trump's lies everyone else has reported 89% of its donations are actually used for charity which seems to be a respectable number). And then there is the stuff which clearly trump is making up as he goes.... In the end, most of the stuff brought up against her has remarkably little ground to stand on assuming it isn't straight up fiction.
Well, my criticism there would be that he did not quite answer the question. The moderator there asked him whether he would accept it if the voters elected hillary. And he answered that if she was elected he would support her. Why would he support her? They are political enemies who have virtually no common ground on policy.
Dunno, the name calling between them wasn't that bad. The trumped up trickle down thing was good IMO. At least a significant improvement over that time she posted a video of her chilling while drinking something on twitter (followed by millennials of the world collectively cringing). And trump did not call her "crooked hillary" which IMO works to his advantage since he didn't use kindergarten level insults on a presidential debate.
There's also the fact that Trump's supporters (normally the nutjob ones) who despise Hillary to the point they want to kill her. Having Trump said that will definitely have a sense of betrayal, which might even boost Hillary's polling numbers a lot.
Personally, I just think that's something that should be avoided at all cost, but you're right that it's an improvement on her part. I'm still surprised that he didn't even used her "alias" Crooked, which is still shocking to me.
Looking at our options for president makes me sick. On one hand we have a lying, abusive, manipulative monster (who laughed about freeing a rapist) and on the other we have an arrogant, ignorant businessman who has no filter and can't get what he does support or doesn't support straight.
Well, the democrat party generally is in favor of more control. And the NRA naturally takes that to it's absolute extreme and presents is as hillary wanting to take away literally everyone's guns. Not that I would be against that but it's a simple fact that hillary is not doing it.
Taking away everyone's guns is a baaaaad idea in the environment that we live in. Only way that'll work is preventing guns from ever being bought illegally, and that's gonna be extremely difficult. I"m not against banning guns, but I see it being pointless and not a solution as it is. You can compare it to the alcohol ban - all it did was lead to the rise of gangsters because they sold bootleg alcohol, and people bought it.
What Indian food? In general, most Indian food are atrocious. Should have supported Trump and gotten Mexican. :>
Trump got owned HARD by Hillary throughout the debate. Sad thing is, people think Trump might do better in the next debates when that's bullshit based on his past speeches and stuff.
What Indian food? In general, most Indian food are atrocious. Should have supported Trump and gotten Mexican. :>
Trump got owned HARD by Hillary throughout the debate. Sad thing is, people think Trump might do better in the next debates when that's bullshit based on his past speeches and stuff.
Trump later on started talking shit and interrupting Hillary a lot while sniffling (people say he did coke before the debate) while Hillary was calm and owned Trump with her comebacks. No solution to anything, and Trump even admitted bad things like not paying taxes and being a racist in the 70s, if not implied his guilt. Anyone with common sense and brain would not vote for Trump after this debate, but if they did have either, Trump would have never made it this far.
I checked some online public polls from cnbc and times. They have trump ahead as the winner of the poll. And I see tweets about Lester helping Clinton leaving trump 2 on 1
Taking away everyone's guns is a baaaaad idea in the environment that we live in. Only way that'll work is preventing guns from ever being bought illegally, and that's gonna be extremely difficult. I"m not against banning guns, but I see it being pointless and not a solution as it is. You can compare it to the alcohol ban - all it did was lead to the rise of gangsters because they sold bootleg alcohol, and people bought it.
That seems a bit circular to me. It's a bad environment because people have guns. And you can't take away guns because it's a bad environment. Any meaningful measure of gun control has to start taking guns from somewhere. Otherwise things will literally never change and the US will maintain it's shameful levels of gun violence (by first world country standards of course).
I am not so sure the alcohol ban is that relevant either. The thing about alcohol is that it's easy to make. You could learn how to make alcohol on youtube in less than 10 minutes and get the ingredients in as much time as it takes you to go to the supermarket. Back in the day people didn't have youtube videos but making alcohol was about as easy to make. In turn you probably can't mass produce guns by merely watching youtube videos. Maybe 3d printers will eventually change that but that is hardly a US issue but rather a world wide issue. All the more reason to nudge people and culture away from guns.
If Obama was allowed a third run for office, you can bet a whole grand he'd be trolling Drumpf the whole time onstage. For example, the birther thing? Easy. As soon as Drumpf gets his mouth running, all he'd have to do is pull out his trusty mug (y'know which one), get a thermos out and pour a nice cup of hot cocoa and enjoy the bullshit all the while directing the cameras to the mug. Better yet, move over to Drumpf and ask him if he wants some (while making sure the mug is in perfect view of cameras)
Well, she held what could be considered homophobic positions in the past, sure. And she has long been in favor of interventionist policy. But contextually, it matters who she's being contrast with, I guess.
Clinton is an interventionist, hands down, but that is something else than warmongering in my book.
She for example was one part of bill's decision to intervene in yugoslawia, and that was a pretty good intervention in my book and not warmongering.
Aside from that: Clinton was always a supporter of homosexual rights. THe thing which is held against her is that she embraced homosexual marriage very late. But that is ignoring that she was for a 'union' which is legally equivalent to marriage but just not called that way.
And she started to be for that when it was still a far left position to have.
I really cannot see that as homophobe no matter how I look at it.
Chai Masalla. It's tomatoes, potatoes, chickpeas and rice (and sauce, obviously).
Indien food is awesome, because i just like when my food can fight back. It is a struggle when you choose the more spicy options.
I checked some online public polls from cnbc and times. They have trump ahead as the winner of the poll. And I see tweets about Lester helping Clinton leaving trump 2 on 1
If Obama was allowed a third run for office, you can bet a whole grand he'd be trolling Drumpf the whole time onstage. For example, the birther thing? Easy. As soon as Drumpf gets his mouth running, all he'd have to do is pull out his trusty mug (y'know which one), get a thermos out and pour a nice cup of hot cocoa and enjoy the bullshit all the while directing the cameras to the mug. Better yet, move over to Drumpf and ask him if he wants some (while making sure the mug is in perfect view of cameras)
Hillary is at multiple disadvantages against obama when it comes to humor. For one thing, obama is genuinely funny. Hillary simply isn't that good at making a joke. The one time I remember her making a joke was with the PC time thing and the world collectively cringed at that. For another, hillary is simply not even remotely as good as public speaking as obama. Obama is in his element when making a speech. This makes a huge difference when delivering a punchline. Even at the last debate when calling out trump on his... everything she didn't make nearly as much of an impact as he could have. Then there is the simple reality that obama is a male and hillary female. People will react unfortunately different to her. And finally there is the simple reality that hillary herself is held at a different standard than other people, it's the only reason trump is a thing at all considering he says stuff that should make him unelectable several times a day....
Hillarious how both dems and republicans claim with 100% certainty that their candidate won the debate. Nearly all polls show that Trump won however, which isn't very surprising.
Although I've heard that he didn't do as good as many people expected, even his own voters were a bit disappointed as he was far too defensive. Guess he wants to seem more presentable and presidential to the undecided voters, the only voters that matter at this point since neither Trump nor Clinton will be losing any of their core supporters. Clinton was the one of the two that was actually insulting the other LUL.
Other than that everything else was expected, Clinton being full of crap and the moderator being laughably biased. Like 7 times more follow up questions and interruptions for Trump compared to Clinton, and his questions choice. Neglecting so many tough questions for both candidates and asks about Trump's insults of Rosie instead
Next debate is in a rather long time. Wonder how much things will change in the 2nd debate or how the 1st debate changes the polls.
Hillarious how both dems and republicans claim with 100% certainty that their candidate won the debate. Nearly all polls show that Trump won however, which isn't very surprising.
Although I've heard that he didn't do as good as many people expected, even his own voters were a bit disappointed as he was far too defensive. Guess he wants to seem more presentable and presidential to the undecided voters, the only voters that matter at this point since neither Trump nor Clinton will be losing any of their core supporters. Clinton was the one of the two that was actually insulting the other LUL.
Other than that everything else was expected, Clinton being full of crap and the moderator being laughably biased. Like 7 times more follow up questions and interruptions for Trump compared to Clinton, and his questions choice. Neglecting so many tough questions for both candidates and asks about Trump's insults of Rosie instead
Next debate is in a rather long time. Wonder how much things will change in the 2nd debate or how the 1st debate changes the polls.
That seems a bit circular to me. It's a bad environment because people have guns. And you can't take away guns because it's a bad environment. Any meaningful measure of gun control has to start taking guns from somewhere. Otherwise things will literally never change and the US will maintain it's shameful levels of gun violence (by first world country standards of course).
I am not so sure the alcohol ban is that relevant either. The thing about alcohol is that it's easy to make. You could learn how to make alcohol on youtube in less than 10 minutes and get the ingredients in as much time as it takes you to go to the supermarket. Back in the day people didn't have youtube videos but making alcohol was about as easy to make. In turn you probably can't mass produce guns by merely watching youtube videos. Maybe 3d printers will eventually change that but that is hardly a US issue but rather a world wide issue. All the more reason to nudge people and culture away from guns.
You don't understand. The problem is that guns can be smuggled in and bought illegally. If that happens, then more lawbreakers will have guns than people who abide by the laws.
Name one thing that was banned and stayed upheld. Illegal drugs are still abused, people still got Cuban cigars, ministers still molest kids, etc etc.
Clinton is an interventionist, hands down, but that is something else than warmongering in my book.
She for example was one part of bill's decision to intervene in yugoslawia, and that was a pretty good intervention in my book and not warmongering.
Aside from that: Clinton was always a supporter of homosexual rights. THe thing which is held against her is that she embraced homosexual marriage very late. But that is ignoring that she was for a 'union' which is legally equivalent to marriage but just not called that way.
And she started to be for that when it was still a far left position to have.
I really cannot see that as homophobe no matter how I look at it.
--- Double Post Merged, , Original Post Date: ---
Chai Masalla. It's tomatoes, potatoes, chickpeas and rice (and sauce, obviously).
Indien food is awesome, because i just like when my food can fight back. It is a struggle when you choose the more spicy options.
Don't worry, clinton won this if we look at the things with some meaning behind it right now:
Hillarious how both dems and republicans claim with 100% certainty that their candidate won the debate. Nearly all polls show that Trump won however, which isn't very surprising.
Several sources say that Hillary won, and that Trump supporters were just being major trolls because they realized their candidate is a weak piece of shit.
