1st Debate! Trump vs Clinton

Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Register Log in
MARIS61 said:
the real Republican Candidate in this year's race, Hillary Clinton.
Click to expand...

True.

barfo said:
Those don't appear to be the same woman, and neither one of them even remotely resembles Hillary.
Click to expand...

I thought the woman was Laura Bush.

Fez Hammersticks said:
Kellyanne is a masterful deflector and liar. Very Charles Manson-esque.
Click to expand...

You shouldn't insult Charles Manson like that.

Denny Crane said:
I was a fan of the protests, now not of the protesters anymore.
Click to expand...

Oh sure you were.
 
jlprk said:
Oh sure you were.
Click to expand...

I sure was. I still protest the establishment in many of my posts. Those who did protest the establishment now are its biggest supporters.

I'm not the hypocrite.
 
Denny Crane said:
Those who did protest the establishment now are its biggest supporters.
Click to expand...

False. Maybe you hung around those protesting tuition hikes or something, not the enduring international issues.
 
jlprk said:
False. Maybe you hung around those protesting tuition hikes or something, not the enduring international issues.
Click to expand...

Anti-establishment.

Anti - against
Establishment - what they're now for.

Where are the anti-war protesters who gathered when Bush dropped bombs, now that Obama is?


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-establishment#1960s

Anti-Establishment became a buzzword of the tumultuous 1960s. Young people raised in comparative luxury saw many wrongs perpetuated by society and began to question "the Establishment". Contentious issues included the ongoing Vietnam War with no clear goal or end point, the constant military build-up and diversion of funds for the Cold War, perpetual widespread poverty being ignored, money-wastingboondoggles like pork barrel projects and the Space Race, festering race issues, a stultifying education system, repressive laws and harsh sentences for casual drug use, and a general malaise among the older generation. On the other side, "Middle America" often regarded questions as accusations, and saw the younger generation as spoiled, drugged-out, sex-crazed, unambitious slackers.

Anti-Establishment debates were common because they touched on everyday aspects of life. Even innocent questions could escalate into angry diatribes. For example, "Why do we spend millions on a foreign war and a space program when our schools are falling apart?" would be answered with "We need to keep our military strong and ready to stop the Communists from taking over the world." As in any debate, there were valid and unsupported arguments on both sides. "Make love not war" invoked "America, love it or leave it."

As the 1960s simmered, the anti-Establishment adopted conventions in opposition to the Establishment. T-shirts and blue jeans became the uniform of the young because their parents wore collar shirts and slacks. Drug use, with its illegal panache, was favored over the legal consumption of alcohol. Promoting peace and love was the antidote to promulgating hatred and war. Living in genteel poverty was more "honest" than amassing a nest egg and a house in the suburbs. Rock 'n roll was played loud over easy listening. Dodging the draft was passive resistance to traditional military service. Dancing was free-style, not learned in a ballroom. Over time, anti-establishment messages crept into popular culture: songs, fashion, movies, lifestyle choices, television.

The emphasis on freedom allowed previously hushed conversations about sex, politics, or religion to be openly discussed. A wave of liberation movements came out of 1960s: the feminist movement, the Black Panthers and Black Power, gay rights, Native American awareness, even "Gray Power" for elders. Programs were put in place to deal with inequities: Equal Opportunity Employment, the Head Start Program, enforcement of the Civil Rights Act, busing, and others. But the widespread dissemination of new ideas also sparked a backlash and resurgence in conservative religions, new segregated private schools, anti-gay and anti-abortion legislation, and other reversals. Extremists tended to be heard more because they made good copy for newspapers and television. In many ways, the angry debates of the 1960s led to modern right-wing talk radio and coalitions for "traditional family values".

As the 1960s passed, society had changed to the point that the definition of the Establishment had blurred, and the term "anti-establishment" seemed to fall out of use.

Emphasis on freedom - Libertarianism.
 
Denny Crane said:
As the 1960s passed, society had changed to the point that the definition of the Establishment had blurred, and the term "anti-establishment" seemed to fall out of use.
Click to expand...

Yes, the media was put under even stricter control. I guess that proves your thesis, that all anti-establishment people became pro-establishment. Appearances are never deceiving, and there is no undercurrent other than what those in power want you to know about.
 
jlprk said:
Yes, the media was put under even stricter control. I guess that proves your thesis, that all anti-establishment people became pro-establishment. Appearances are never deceiving, and there is no undercurrent other than what those in power want you to know about.
Click to expand...

Either you're anti-establishment or you're not.

Nothing's changed enough for the better to change peoples' minds.
 
blue32 said:
Damn, that's funny. He was right after all.
Click to expand...

That's my problem with the media these days. They accuse Trump of lying or whatever, and on quite a few of those claims, he's proven right.

Like Clinton campaign started the birther thing, or he was against the rush to war at a time when support for the war was high.
 
Denny Crane said:
That's my problem with the media these days. They accuse Trump of lying or whatever, and on quite a few of those claims, he's proven right.

Like Clinton campaign started the birther thing, or he was against the rush to war at a time when support for the war was high.
Click to expand...

Gotta hand it to CNN. They actually are admitting they were wrong by posting the story front and center... bout time..
 
Denny Crane said:
That's my problem with the media these days. They accuse Trump of lying or whatever, and on quite a few of those claims, it turns out to be only 99.99999% untruthful.

Like Clinton campaign started the birther thing, or he was against the rush to war at a time when support for the war was high.
Click to expand...

FTFY.

barfo
 
Denny Crane said:
Actually, it's surprising how truthful he is, in reality. Reality is not the same thing as barfoland(tm)
Click to expand...

Yes, only one lie every 3 minutes. He's a real honest guy.

barfo
 
barfo said:
Yes, only one lie every 3 minutes. He's a real honest guy.

barfo
Click to expand...

Hiliar isn't any better. Those around her and her sycophants lie on her behalf, too. They even lie about lying.
 
Denny Crane said:
Hiliar isn't any better. Those around her and her sycophants lie on her behalf, too. They even lie about lying.
Click to expand...

Actually, she objectively is better. She lies significantly less often.

barfo
 
barfo said:
Actually, she objectively is better. She lies significantly less often.

barfo
Click to expand...

No she doesn't.

Only the fact checkers when they lie say she is telling the truth.
 
Denny Crane said:
No she doesn't.

Only the fact checkers when they lie say she is telling the truth.
Click to expand...

Prove it. Show me evidence that she lies more often than he does. Bet you can't.

barfo
 
People use the term "lie" pretty loosely. From my perspective, if you're talking about being factually correct, I think Clinton is generally more on top of her facts. Trump just plain doesn't give a flying fig about facts. They just get in the way of the rants that he goes on so he manufactures whatever "facts" fit with his narrative.

When people talk about Hillary's "lies", they aren't usually talking about the facts she uses on the campaign trail. They're talking about her intentional duplicitous practices and misleading statements relating to the emails, Benghazi, speaking fees, the Clinton Foundation, etc.
 
wonder if the mic is why his sniffles were more pronounced?
 
New Fox News Poll is out and it looks like Hillary picked up a couple of percentage points:

Clinton -43%
Trump -40%
Johnson -8%
Green - 4%
 
EL PRESIDENTE said:
wonder if the mic is why his sniffles were more pronounced?
Click to expand...
The statement by the Commission really doesn't tell us much. There were audio issues. Was it even a mic issue? Was it a speaker issue? Was it an audio issue related to the telecast feed or for the audiotorium? Also -- don't they check these things beforehand? So, I can see why you might wonder about this, but I can't imagine we will ever get an answer. Frankly, Trump should just let things go. People have probably forgot about the sniffles and they would forget about Machado too if he wouldn't keep bringing it up. This double down approach is eventually going to burn him. Maybe he will do better in the next debate, but probably not. If he is going to go after Hillary for Bill Clinton's affairs, I think he is just playing into her hands.
 
Sedatedfork said:
The statement by the Commission really doesn't tell us much. There were audio issues. Was it even a mic issue? Was it a speaker issue? Was it an audio issue related to the telecast feed or for the audiotorium? Also -- don't they check these things beforehand? So, I can see why you might wonder about this, but I can't imagine we will ever get an answer. Frankly, Trump should just let things go. People have probably forgot about the sniffles and they would forget about Machado too if he wouldn't keep bringing it up. This double down approach is eventually going to burn him. Maybe he will do better in the next debate, but probably not. If he is going to go after Hillary for Bill Clinton's affairs, I think he is just playing into her hands.
Click to expand...

Machado is a fucking idiot. She's a liabilty other than the initial talking point.
 
barfo said:
Prove it. Show me evidence that she lies more often than he does. Bet you can't.

barfo
Click to expand...
I find they both lie so much, it's hard to tell if they're telling the truth. Except when the fact checkers call it - they're mostly wrong.
 
Denny Crane said:
That's my problem with the media these days. They accuse Trump of lying or whatever, and on quite a few of those claims, he's proven right.

Like Clinton campaign started the birther thing, or he was against the rush to war at a time when support for the war was high.
Click to expand...

Ha ha!! You used the phrase "rush to war?"

One of my most memorably frustrating arguments with you was a couple of years ago when I said there had been a rush to war. You came up with several cut-and-paste posts denying it until I gave up.
 
jlprk said:
Ha ha!! You used the phrase "rush to war?"

One of my most memorably frustrating arguments with you was a couple of years ago when I said there had been a rush to war. You came up with several cut-and-paste posts denying it.
Click to expand...

Trump used the phrase "rush to war."

The media called him a liar based upon some 2002 shock jock radio interview. In 2003, 2 months before the invasion, he was on Fox News saying "maybe we should wait, maybe we should wait for the U.N."

Clearly against a rush to war.

My own view is there was no rush. No war in 2001, no war in 2002, no war until March of 2003. That's 2+ years. Rush to war would be, you know, right away.

March of 2003 was 1.5 years after 9/11/2001. Not exactly a rush their either.

W, as commander in chief, could have ordered the war to start any time of his choosing.
 
1zh1pco.jpg
 
Denny Crane said:
My own view is there was no rush. No war in 2001, no war in 2002, no war until March of 2003. That's 2+ years. Rush to war would be, you know, right away. March of 2003 was 1.5 years after 9/11/2001. Not exactly a rush their either.
Click to expand...

Circular reasoning.

The reason that the rush to war took 1.5 years of daily demands from Bush to rush us into war was...almost everyone was against going to war. Get it?

Just because he had to give us the bum's rush for so long due to our resistance, does not mean that he did not give us the bum's rush. Get it?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)
Back
Top