The Presidential Debates

[devonin]

Re: The Presidential Debates

thing is i have a hard time putting stock in foreign policy experience as a prerequisite, because it's hard to have without having worked in a job like secretary of state before, but it is a huge plus factor for those who have it

If you work in politics, especially if you intend to run for President of the United States, foreign -policy experience- is one thing, basic knowledge of the foreign world is another.

I can't name the elected leader of most countries in the world either, but I'm also not running for President.

[FoJaR]

Re: The Presidential Debates

Can you rationally parse out this statement without: 1) defaulting to irony; 2) sounding like an idiot; and 3) not making a false equivalency between trump and hillary?

I mean I get that you basically just said trump is 10x worse than hillary, but those are meaningless, emotionally charged quantifiers, and I doubt you could come up with comparable quantifiers relating to johnson and hillary that would be convincing.

you're right, hillary is probably 100 times better than trump.

trump is a fucking moron. full stop.

hillary suffers from an excess of hubris.

the email scandal is a real thing. a normal person may not have gone to jail either, but they definitely would have lost their security clearance. it's not like she did something purposefully harmful, but what she did was stupid, reckless, and her response shows that she clearly thinks that she is above the law. she did finally apologize during the debate, which was a long time coming.

i've listened to some of the congressional hearings with the IT people that worked for her, and you can tell that republicans are trying to trump things up (they always focus on the fact that she had her old phones destroyed with a hammer, which is silly of them since there are better ways to make her look bad) but there are some serious problems with how she handled this. that much is clear.

gary johnson is a libertarian, which means i agree with him on about half of everything.

his policy on global warming is definitely one of the things that i dont agree with, but he's not a science denier which means that he meets my minimum requirements. also he seems like a person who could be reasoned with.

he doesnt have any huge skeletons in his closet, and i think that republicans would be more likely to come to compromises with him than they would with hillary because they hate hillary.

it's clear that hillary is more interested in doing what's best for herself, and not what's best for the party or the country. too much hubris by half.

i'm obviously going to vote for her because i'm a pragmatist, but i'm not terribly happy about it.

[FoJaR]

Re: The Presidential Debates

Johnson doesn't know who any world leaders are.

okay lets remember that it wasn't name a world leader, it's name a world leader he respects. it's a much shorter list.

edit: at least it is for me.

[devonin]

Re: The Presidential Debates

My experience is libertarians is generally by way of "We agree pretty well on what the problems are and then have WILDLY divergent ideas about how to actually fix them"

[FoJaR]

Re: The Presidential Debates

yeah but in general i think they are more reasonable than republicans and definitely more reasonable than tea party because there's less "GOD SAYS X" going on.

like i think the difference between me and libertarians is where the line should be, not that there should be a line at all, and that's a discussion that i'm willing to have.

[FoJaR]

Re: The Presidential Debates

at least, not ones he respects if i remember that sound bite, which is dangerous

thing is i have a hard time putting stock in foreign policy experience as a prerequisite, because it's hard to have without having worked in a job like secretary of state before, but it is a huge plus factor for those who have it

johnson has other executive experience which is a plus for him but ideologically he's a minus

i think ideologically he's a wash. at least for me, and probably for most people.

republicans and dems are each going to agree with about half of what he believes in, and disagree with the other half.

[inDheart]

Re: The Presidential Debates

If you work in politics, especially if you intend to run for President of the United States, foreign -policy experience- is one thing, basic knowledge of the foreign world is another.

I can't name the elected leader of most countries in the world either, but I'm also not running for President.

this is true, but it has nuances. after watching the original clip again, though, it's worse than i remembered, and now i'm inclined to agree.

he had to pick a world leader he respects, which narrows the set he can pick from, because he also needs to know why. the impression that gives me is that most foreign leaders aren't quite radical enough for his tastes, or something. but unlike syria where it looked like his mind was just doing some kind of cache miss, having exactly zero leaders off the top of your head and needing your running mate to bail you out is baaaad

i think ideologically he's a wash. at least for me, and probably for most people.

republicans and dems are each going to agree with about half of what he believes in, and disagree with the other half.

i've been secretly hoping that republicans flock to johnson because of the parts they'd tend to agree with. most of the bernie bros i know have not been people who are taking to johnson, and will likely vote for hillary now, though i have one friend in particular who thinks it might not matter either way because trump might not be allowed to touch things in a trump presidency. still unwilling to chance that myself, though.

[IamMe90]

Re: The Presidential Debates

you're right, hillary is probably 100 times better than trump.

trump is a fucking moron. full stop.

thank you, i agree

hillary suffers from an excess of hubris.

Does she? i'm not saying she doesn't, i legitimately don't really know what her inner moral compass is, and i could come up with literally hundreds of narratives that would fit her actions. however, i am not a mind reader, and i am loathe to: 1) come up with these sorts of narratives in the absence of objective evidence; and 2) then pretend like the ones i did come up with are backed by any kind of objective evidence even though they are clearly not.

the email scandal is a real thing. a normal person may not have gone to jail either, but they definitely would have lost their security clearance. it's not like she did something purposefully harmful, but what she did was stupid, reckless, and her response shows that she clearly thinks that she is above the law.

Does it? because i think that this is a statement that is not backed by any sort of objective evidence, and merely fits the preconceived narrative that you possess about her character. i also don't think that she necessarily doesn't feel that she is above the law, i don't know man, but those are some loaded statements about feelings and other intangible shit that isn't really convincingly demonstrated by the supposed evidence here

she did finally apologize during the debate, which was a long time coming.

Yes, i agree, she should have owned up to her mistake quite a while ago.

i've listened to some of the congressional hearings with the IT people that worked for her, and you can tell that republicans are trying to trump things up (they always focus on the fact that she had her old phones destroyed with a hammer, which is silly of them since there are better ways to make her look bad) but there are some serious problems with how she handled this. that much is clear.

yes, i agree with you. however, to me, this speaks more to the inadequate integration of technology into politics, and also law, rather than some sort of gross individual incompetency by one person. that is too easy of an answer that shifts the burden of responsibility from significant systemic factors that allowed this situation to occur, and has allowed it to occur in the past, despite the fact that no one seems to really give a shit about those occurrences.

gary johnson is a libertarian, which means i agree with him on about half of everything.

his policy on global warming is definitely one of the things that i dont agree with, but he's not a science denier which means that he meets my minimum requirements. also he seems like a person who could be reasoned with.

to me, its indicative of the sad state of US politics when someone who, by all measures, seems to be quite reasonable and well spoken, only requires "science [non]deni[al]" as a minimum criterion for a political candidate with respect to their environmental views. this is absolutely not good enough. not even close. this is probably the most pressing and important issue for literally every single country on the planet. we've already passed the point where it'd be acceptable to just turn a blind eye to it; we're at the point where we need to be pushing for candidates who want to take aggressive action about this issue. hillary, i think, could be much stronger on this issue, but she is also leagues ahead of johnson on this issue.

he doesnt have any huge skeletons in his closet, and i think that republicans would be more likely to come to compromises with him than they would with hillary because they hate hillary.

who cares? what is johnson going to compromise on with republicans that will benefit anyone? because i promise you, the parts of his platform that you like, will not be up for debate. the current crop of republicans will never compromise on those issues. if you're excited for compromise on destroying the EPA, defunding all sorts of public services that benefit poor people, and reducing taxes on the rich from their already paltry levels, then that's great for you, i guess.

it's clear that hillary is more interested in doing what's best for herself, and not what's best for the party or the country. too much hubris by half.

again, i don't really know what hillary's internal motivations are, and i dont' care to speculate on that, especially since i don't find it particularly fruitful or relevant. but, you do you, man.

i'm obviously going to vote for her because i'm a pragmatist, but i'm not terribly happy about it.

Well, im glad you're doing the right thing. i'm not particularly thrilled either

[dAnceguy117]

Re: The Presidential Debates

I live in Alabama so my vote doesn't mean anything :^(

[FoJaR]

Re: The Presidential Debates

Does she? i'm not saying she doesn't, i legitimately don't really know what her inner moral compass is, and i could come up with literally hundreds of narratives that would fit her actions. however, i am not a mind reader, and i am loathe to: 1) come up with these sorts of narratives in the absence of objective evidence; and 2) then pretend like the ones i did come up with are backed by any kind of objective evidence even though they are clearly not.

yes, she does. you clearly feel comfortable judging trump based on his words and actions, but you're hesitant to do the same with clinton? what of her words and actions have led you to believe that she isnt eager or at least willing to put her own ambitions above what is best for the country or the democratic party? 3-4 months passed between the beginning of the email scandal and the democratic convention. 3-4 months for her to drop out of the race, like any respectable person would have done. 3-4 months for her to at least apologize. what did she do instead? obstruct justice by deleting data from her servers, hide behind lawyers and act glib about it in the media. yes, we were asking if you wiped the server with a cloth. very funny. i am glad you are taking this seriously.

Does it? because i think that this is a statement that is not backed by any sort of objective evidence, and merely fits the preconceived narrative that you possess about her character. i also don't think that she necessarily doesn't feel that she is above the law, i don't know man, but those are some loaded statements about feelings and other intangible shit that isn't really convincingly demonstrated by the supposed evidence here

yes, it does. instead of handing over her server to the justice department, you know, obeying the law, she had it wiped. instead of providing the server as requred by subpoena, she gave the justice department a selection of emails. i guarantee you that if something of yours gets subpoenad and you decide that the courts dont actually need it, they just need a part of it, bad things will happen to you. it is abundantly clear that she feels like she is above the law, probably because she continues to get away with things that would land the rest of us in a cell. all of her actions, you know, the ones that flagrantly break the law, those objective facts, point toward that conclusion. the fact that she is getting away with it doesnt mean that what she has done is not wrong, and flagrantly contrary to law.

yes, i agree with you. however, to me, this speaks more to the inadequate integration of technology into politics, and also law, rather than some sort of gross individual incompetency by one person. that is too easy of an answer that shifts the burden of responsibility from significant systemic factors that allowed this situation to occur, and has allowed it to occur in the past, despite the fact that no one seems to really give a shit about those occurrences.

none of what you said matters, and here's why. she fucked up big time by using her personal server. not because of a potential leak of classified information (although that too) but mostly because it gave house republicans an inroad to her private servers. this entire scandal is political rather than substantive, or at least it was until hillary's giant mistake of a response to it.

the house oversight committee has access to any evidence from a criminal investigation being done by the justice department. republicans run the house. hillary knew that anything that she turned over to the justice department (ie her server) would be seen by republicans in the house. i'm sure that the republicans on the house didnt actually care that much about the emails she sent as secretary of state. they knew that she wouldnt send any classified information through email. they were probably far more interested in the rest of the things that went through that server. all of the personal and political things. instead of living with her mistake, obeying the law, and handing over her server as it was to the justice department, she lawyered up (perfectly fine) wiped her servers (whoopsie) and proceeded to make light of the whole situation.

is it fair that house republicans would be able to go through her dirty laundry? not really, but it was her mistake that opened that door, and instead of obeying the law and doing the right thing and withdrawing, she decided that her personal ambitions were worth the things that she would have to do to cover up the incident.

i very much doubt that she hid any official emails from the justice department, but by choosing which emails to provide them with, she broke the law. period. she decided that protecting her political ambitions was more important than obeying the law. period.

to me, its indicative of the sad state of US politics when someone who, by all measures, seems to be quite reasonable and well spoken, only requires "science [non]deni[al]" as a minimum criterion for a political candidate with respect to their environmental views. this is absolutely not good enough. not even close. this is probably the most pressing and important issue for literally every single country on the planet. we've already passed the point where it'd be acceptable to just turn a blind eye to it; we're at the point where we need to be pushing for candidates who want to take aggressive action about this issue. hillary, i think, could be much stronger on this issue, but she is also leagues ahead of johnson on this issue.

it's a minimum requirement, meaning that i will not vote for anyone who denies science. if trump were the same person, but was not a crazy anti-vaxxer, global warming denier, i would still not vote for him.

on the other hand if tim kaine, a guy who i happen to like, were to suddenly start denying science, i would never vote for him again, no matter how many of his other policies i still agreed with.

yes, i prefer hillary's environmental policy to johnson's, but policy and character need to be weighed.

who cares? what is johnson going to compromise on with republicans that will benefit anyone? because i promise you, the parts of his platform that you like, will not be up for debate. the current crop of republicans will never compromise on those issues. if you're excited for compromise on destroying the EPA, defunding all sorts of public services that benefit poor people, and reducing taxes on the rich from their already paltry levels, then that's great for you, i guess.

it's all about end results for me. if he understands that global warming is a threat to our collective future but wants to employ different methods to solve the problem, all i care about is that they work. if he can somehow use markets to eliminate our carbon footprint i dont care if he cuts the EPA out of global warming. i'm open to any solution, as long as the person i'm voting for is actually trying to solve the problem.

again, i don't really know what hillary's internal motivations are, and i dont' care to speculate on that, especially since i don't find it particularly fruitful or relevant. but, you do you, man.

i'm not going to ignore the words and actions of someone running for president. but hey, you do you man.

[top]

Re: The Presidential Debates

I'll take the brazen dumbass over the compulsive liar any day.

[j-rodd123]

Re: The Presidential Debates

Yea cuz trump isn't a liar....

[FoJaR]

Re: The Presidential Debates

I'll take the brazen dumbass over the compulsive liar any day.

Hillary isn't a compulsive liar, she's a self serving liar.

trump is a compulsive liar. he lies about almost everything for apparently no reason.constantly.

[top]

Re: The Presidential Debates

Woops you just defined every politician

[FoJaR]

Re: The Presidential Debates

most politicians are self serving liars. trump is the only compulsive one i can think of.