News 2016 U.S. Presidential election - the highs and lows

KLS52 said:
Not alone.

I'm getting close to blocking one of my cousins on FB.
Click to expand...
I've had to unfollow a few family members. I think I am the only one in my family not voting for Trump. My one brother constantly posts anti-Clinton memes almost daily. I'm unfollowing him until the election is over. I love him to death, but I don't love his politics.
 
  • Like
Reactions: KLS52
Jeremy said:
You are... Absolutely... NOT... Alone... It's a blame Clinton and Obama for everything under the sun fiesta... Good grief
Click to expand...

Well, after all, Hillary has been fighting ISIS her entire life, and yet here they still are. Snort.
 
Shamefully I only caught part of the debate although I was home. CNN is giving her a good landslide victory.

Driving home from grocery shopping listening to local Faux News station, I think it was Hannity stating Trump had just arrived at the debate venue looking good and relaxed while Hilary will be showing up shortly in her "rolling hospital"

I was like 'wow can you go any lower?'
 
Trump's mic was fine. His performance not so much. He was clearly out of his league. Hillary Clinton is more than qualified to be president but I don't care for her neoliberal policies.

Off topic in spoilers:

I had ABC on mute before the debate. "Dancing with the Stars" was on. Vanilla Ice is one of the contestants. In the lower third it has the contestant's name. Beneath their name, what they are famous for. Rick Perry is a politician, for example. Vanilla Ice is considered a "Rap Legend".

tumblr_m12ex9TnBr1rrbogso2_250.gif
 
Last edited:
I'm surprised to read that HC did a lot better than DT in the debate, strange.:D

I didn't see it, but it's on TV now. I was just reading that people have been making comments about the amount of times DT sniffed and I see what they mean.

ETA - braggadocious, lol.

Overall, I thought she wiped the floor with him, although he seemed more coherent than I have ever seen him. I was just looking on some of the US forums I usually go on and the Trump supporters suddenly seem very quiet.:p

Presidential election debate: Trump and Clinton clash - BBC News
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Mischief
Jeremy said:
I've unfollowed many many people on Facebook. All you do is go to their timeline and there's a place to unfollow them. You simply don't see what they post anymore unless you actually go to their timeline. It no longer comes up in your news feed.
Click to expand...
Thanks, I did mean unfollow...I may upgrade to blocking at some point, though, if unfollowing isn't strong enough, lol.

I don't mind posts that simply state a person's preference or posts that give differing points of view. It's the blatant love and admiration for him that gets me...the posts filled with emotion that are either for him or against Hilary. I may not have wanted Hilary but I don't have the disdain for her that I have for DT. Or maybe it's just fear.
 
KLS52 said:
I was thinking the same thing, which scared me, but I only saw the first half.
Click to expand...
It was during the second half that he unraveled.

The main thing he did during the first half was the constant interruptions, which didn't do him any favors with those elusive suburban women voters, IMO. It had to have reminded them of every man who has ever talked over them while they were speaking.

I think Hillary managed to do what that whole field of Republican men failed to do during the primary debates.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Amy SF
Also, he twice admitted that he doesn't pay federal income taxes. The first time, when he said, "That makes me smart" in response to the accusation, and the second time when he said, "It would have been squandered too."
 
Mischief said:
That's not the point. The point is the 20+ percent of undecideds.
Click to expand...

Where are these 20% undecided voters? If we assume they are spread evenly throughout the country, then none of them will have any meaningful impact in the state they are voting in.

The electoral college is an all or nothing system. Even if all undecided voters in a red state decide to vote for Hilary, the state would still go to Trump, and vice versa in a blue state.

I've been hearing about this 20% for many many years. I wonder if it ever really existed as such a large block of voters, or are the Networks trying to keep us on the edge of our seats.. Even if that 20% was true at some point in time, in this ever increasingly partisan country, I don't think that 20% holds true anymore - or has a study been done recently that confirms that the often quoted 20% is still valid?

Unless I can see something that validates that number, I'm going to take the position that it's one of those things that someone said once, and was repeated so many times, it became the "truth".
 
Jer & I watched the debate last night, too. Yeah, that was probably one of the most bizarre, painfully awkward, wildly uncomfortable live events I've seen in quite some time. LMAO :bag: I don't think cool, calm, collected Clinton even once took a sip of water, while twitchy Trump just about drained his glass. And Trump simply could not stop being antsy & smirking & interrupting & LYING.

Oh, and we went here immediately afterwards... FACT CHECK! http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/27/us/politics/fact-check-debate.html?_r=0
 
I'm curious...who are these fact checkers and are they to be believed or is it still a question of he says she says? It seems too simple that there is an avenue out there that can actually be trusted to report facts.
 
KLS52 said:
I'm curious...who are these fact checkers and are they to be believed or is it still a question of he says she says? It seems too simple that there is an avenue out there that can actually be trusted to report facts.
Click to expand...
Most of his lies are so blatant that they can very readily be checked because video and /or tweets exist of Donald saying (repeatedly) the things he claims he didn't say. That makes it easy to fact check the fact checkers if you don't believe them.
 
They're fact checking whether or not things were said or done as claimed by them or their opponent. The fact checkers look to see if those things were actually said or done in the past, and post links to them when found. I don't see why they shouldn't be trusted.

 
beancounter said:
Where are these 20% undecided voters? If we assume they are spread evenly throughout the country, then none of them will have any meaningful impact in the state they are voting in.

The electoral college is an all or nothing system. Even if all undecided voters in a red state decide to vote for Hilary, the state would still go to Trump, and vice versa in a blue state.

I've been hearing about this 20% for many many years. I wonder if it ever really existed as such a large block of voters, or are the Networks trying to keep us on the edge of our seats.. Even if that 20% was true at some point in time, in this ever increasingly partisan country, I don't think that 20% holds true anymore - or has a study been done recently that confirms that the often quoted 20% is still valid?

Unless I can see something that validates that number, I'm going to take the position that it's one of those things that someone said once, and was repeated so many times, it became the "truth".
Click to expand...

The undecided figures coke from people's responses to polls.

I'm not sure how you're doing your math, but there are many states where the difference between candidates is a matter of a few percentage points of less. How the undecideds break can have a most definite impact in those states.
 
Top Bottom