He's unloading all his bombs. To his detriment he's not articulate enough to play that hand effectively.
That's it. Does he have good ideas? He's too stumblebum to say them well. He came off as a bully (repeated interruptions are not Presidential) and unable to show the amount of nuance that the office requires. Sure he could throw a zinger. Is that what we need?
If we talk about Trump without talking about Hillary, we see someone who's not ready for the job in any way. He might have good intentions, but he's not Presidential. (Talking bad about Hillary is not a rejoinder to this observation)
None of this will make any difference. Voting for Trump isn't a logical thing, so logic and discussion is a useless tool. His followers are emphatic, driven, religious. He insulted minorities, handicapped, women. He's never held public office of any kind. His investments have frequently gone bankrupt. And yet, there he stands, supported by many working class people who think he gives a shit about them. The debate is just a chance to see him insult Hillary.
The moderators lack control of this. I think that there should be a timed microphone shut off where it's emotionless and neutral and consistent.
Yes it was a good one. I could go with the microphone timer.
But it was a real debate. Maybe the first real POTUS debate I've ever seen and I've seen em all since Kennedy / Nixon.
There was real direct back and forth at length with both of em saying what they really wanted to say. Never before has the choice or difference between two candidates been made so clear.
Mine too. Also, put shock collars on the candidates and give Sam the remote. Let him call bullshit. Let him say: ANSWER THE FUCKING QUESTION, MOTHERFUCKER!
The moderators lack control of this. I think that there should be a timed microphone shut off where it's emotionless and neutral and consistent.
He's unloading all his bombs. To his detriment he's not articulate enough to play that hand effectively. It's all about diversion. His exposure as a sleeze shouldn't be a surprise. It seemed pretty obvious all along. If the Republicans had enough fortitude they could have fielded just about anyone else and totally taken this thing.
*edit* I think by 'effectively' I mean in ways that doesn't alienate or strike a hollow tone. Oddly enough I'm not an expert on these things, but I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night...
Compared to the other candidates, though, Clinton is the best prepared and most detailed in her policy positions (you could lose yourself for a day or two in her policy details). Bernie captured left-wing frustration but he had no realistic way of paying for free healthcare and free college education. He has very little record of achievement in 25 years of Congress. The Republican candidates were largely muppets, trapped in a blind loyalty to a pseudo-Reagan ideology (contrary to the vision of Reagan now, he raised taxes, increased the size of government and deficit drastically, intervened aggressively in international relations and offered amnesty to illegal immigrants).
Trump was the worst of the Republican lot, though. He's a narcissistic liar with a history of ripping people off and a total lack of political experience. I understand that many people are still hurting financially but Trump has shown nothing beyond loud words that he can and will help their lot. As I've posted before, Trump's verbal and physical treatment of women is the least of his problems. His party has denounced him (Ryan and McConnell have but not enough) and many GOP leaders have called on Trump to step down. He is destroying the long-term viability of the GOP with his statements about minorities and women.
Trump is a full-blown sociopath. He has no business being the presidential nominee of the GOP. His nomination showed me that many Americans don't take their civic responsibilities seriously and that the Republican party is badly broken. (I also think that Hillary Clinton's nomination shows that the Democratic leadership needs to allow voters to become more involved with the nomination process. HRC has become too involved in the art of political machinations and by her own admission has lost touch with the lives of average Americans.)
Islander, if you still think I'm a shill then PM me and we can discuss the matter further.
When kurtster posted that he was more concerned with Bill Clinton's behavior than Donald's, I was surprised. Bill isn't running for President. What Bill did or didn't do decades ago is irrelevant to our economy and kurtster has complained vigorously about the economy. Trump is finally involved in a huge controversy about his behavior and it struck me that kurtster was trying to divert attention from that—something that a paid shill would do. I couldn't think of another reason kurtster would try to drive the focus of the discussion to Bill.
I withdraw my implication that kurtster is a shill. I will stop insulting him. It'd be nice if he stopped insulting me (and yes he has.WTF is "butt-hutt"? )but I won't insult him even if he insults me again. Steely_D is right about sticking to the strength of your argument and not insulting people. Personal insults slowly destroy the readability and value of discussion boards.
Again I draw your attention to your reading comprehension ... (and yes he has.WTF is "butt-hutt"?
A couple of things. I believe the term is butt hurt ...and the other is, I have never used that term. If I have please show me where. I've been insulted and personally attacked by the best and worst here for many years. It comes with the territory of holding the views I have. You get points without hurting your regards as a poster for attacking those on the right side of the aisle. Its a blood sport here. I have a thick skin.
I would argue the opposite on taking one's civic responsibilities seriously being a Trump supporter. I see it as my civic duty to stop the status quo any way I can. If it takes Trump to do it, so be it. You apparently see it as your civic duty to maintain the status quo anyway you can by electing Hillary Clinton.
Notice how Trump seems to scare everyone on both the right and left establishments ? That's good in my world. It shows me he has a plan that has them so scared they will join forces and do anything they can to stop him so they can remain in power. The only group of people supporting Trump are those who do not have a seat at the table.
What Bill did 20 and 30 years ago have little to do with the economy today, you're right. But I've had a problem with Bill from the beginning. So much so that I voted for Jerry Brown in the 1992 primary. So my problem with the Clinton's is nothing new. I've had enough of the Clinton's. With one, you get the other. They are inseparable in my world. That people think Trump should not serve because of his behaviour, well its a lot better than Bill's, which is the standard in place. Bill is still defended vigorously to the point that many wish they could vote for him, still. I've also had enough of the Bushes. 41 was actually good in my view, but 43 not. So I've got half of what I want so far.
Lastly, You and I would gather most Hillary supporters see Trump supporters as racist, xenophobic, bigoted misogynists. Oh, I forgot intellectually defective, deplorable and morally bankrupt. But do you know that I and most Trump supporters see Hillary supporters as simply in favor of open public corruption and willing to protect it at any cost so that y'all keep your place on the gravy train, aka status quo ...
I see Trump as the only one of the 17 running on his side willing and capable of taking on the corruption by not being bought and paid for by those who are corrupt, the establishment, by using his own money so he can tell them, STFU, you don't own me !!! Hillary on the other hand, is owned and operated by the establishment. The current wiki leaks confirms all of this including her views on open borders, Wall Street and her insistence of using executive orders to take away gun rights. Until now, these charges have been ridiculed as conspiracy theories by the usual suspects. Now they are proven.
1. I am not a shill. I support HRC with reservations. I have always posted only my own opinions and will always do so.
2. Trump is unfit to be President. He is scamming desperate people and destroying the GOP.
3. I felt I had good reason last night to suspect that kurtster of being a shill.
4. I withdraw my accusation that kurtster is a shill and will not insult him further, even if he insults me.
5. I will not engage in personal attacks with other posters. They corrode good discussions.
6. I will continue to be honest and opinionated.
Add-on: I will try to write shorter posts. Steely_D wrote:
kcar wrote:
Steely_D is right about sticking to the strength of your argument and not insulting people. Personal insults slowly destroy the readability and value of discussion boards.
Steely_D is right about sticking to the strength of your argument and not insulting people. Personal insults slowly destroy the readability and value of discussion boards.
We have a pretty good history here, and have dealt with several shills over the years. So many in fact that we developed a checklist:
Username GolfRomeo
Shows up in an election year
posts first and predominantly in the political threads
maintains a one sided view, supported by popular talking points
has a smattering of song ratings that don't really make sense
has limited song comments
from the forum around new years
Good job on getting the song comments built up, and ratings are always subjective, so I'd even give you a little credit there. But overall you are filling out the scorecard pretty well.
If you're accusing me of being a shill, you haven't been paying attention. Check out my comments in the "Ask the Libertarian" thread around the last two weeks of September. Would a shill write such long posts about a fringe party and its candidate who has no chance of winning?
I normally don't write in the forum. I have recently because there's no longer much of a conversation in most of the song comments. That's for me the heart of RP. I've written more in the forum because this election has spiraled into a spectacle and it's a sure way of finding spirited conversation. Once again, voters on both sides feel that their country is at a critical crossroads with a real chance of lurching into complete disaster. The two major parties have lost touch with many of their supporters and it's not clear that the next President will have any way of fighting through gridlock. When you follow American politics these days, you pick up on the fact that many Americans feel that their own lives are in danger of being seriously harmed by the next President. At this point, given the long public histories of Trump and Clinton, the polarization of our politics and the frustrations of voters, it's almost inevitable that supporters or Trump and Clinton are going to be dug in and loud in their opinions.
I support Hillary Clinton but with serious reservations. She is clearly the most qualified candidate that either party has put up, but the woman triangulates just as much as Bill ever did. She's excessively cautious and private, so it's not clear what she really believes in. The recently leaked Wall Street speeches reinforce this concern: Clinton speaks of needing to have a public and a private position on policy matters, presumably to keep public opposition at bay. She also reassures her audience that bankers are the best group to know how to regulate the banking industry.
Those speeches and Clinton's refusal to release them fuel real concerns about her judgment. It's likely she felt the need to reassure Wall Street in order to get campaign donations from the finance industry but it should have been clear to her that the speeches were never going to remain private and that trying to keep them from the public was just going to add fuel to the fire. Her willingness to intervene in Libya when it the country's precarious state (an out-of-touch leader, bitter tribal, religious and regional divisions, an over-reliance on oil revenue that promotes corruption and economic volatility, and ready access to weapons via external patron states like Iran and Saudi Arabia) was shockingly naive: those conditions I listed within the parentheses also describe pre-war Iraq. Libya was likely to become a difficult situation even had we not intervened but I think Clinton was foolishly aggressive.
Compared to the other candidates, though, Clinton is the best prepared and most detailed in her policy positions (you could lose yourself for a day or two in her policy details). Bernie captured left-wing frustration but he had no realistic way of paying for free healthcare and free college education. He has very little record of achievement in 25 years of Congress. The Republican candidates were largely muppets, trapped in a blind loyalty to a pseudo-Reagan ideology (contrary to the vision of Reagan now, he raised taxes, increased the size of government and deficit drastically, intervened aggressively in international relations and offered amnesty to illegal immigrants).
Trump was the worst of the Republican lot, though. He's a narcissistic liar with a history of ripping people off and a total lack of political experience. I understand that many people are still hurting financially but Trump has shown nothing beyond loud words that he can and will help their lot. As I've posted before, Trump's verbal and physical treatment of women is the least of his problems. His party has denounced him (Ryan and McConnell have but not enough) and many GOP leaders have called on Trump to step down. He is destroying the long-term viability of the GOP with his statements about minorities and women.
Trump is a full-blown sociopath. He has no business being the presidential nominee of the GOP. His nomination showed me that many Americans don't take their civic responsibilities seriously and that the Republican party is badly broken. (I also think that Hillary Clinton's nomination shows that the Democratic leadership needs to allow voters to become more involved with the nomination process. HRC has become too involved in the art of political machinations and by her own admission has lost touch with the lives of average Americans.)
Islander, if you still think I'm a shill then PM me and we can discuss the matter further.
When kurtster posted that he was more concerned with Bill Clinton's behavior than Donald's, I was surprised. Bill isn't running for President. What Bill did or didn't do decades ago is irrelevant to our economy and kurtster has complained vigorously about the economy. Trump is finally involved in a huge controversy about his behavior and it struck me that kurtster was trying to divert attention from that—something that a paid shill would do. I couldn't think of another reason kurtster would try to drive the focus of the discussion to Bill.
I withdraw my implication that kurtster is a shill. I will stop insulting him. It'd be nice if he stopped insulting me (and yes he has. WTF is "butt-hutt"? ) but I won't insult him even if he insults me again. Steely_D is right about sticking to the strength of your argument and not insulting people. Personal insults slowly destroy the readability and value of discussion boards.
) 
: I promise to be good