The Clinton Trump Debates

[GravitySucks]

https://twitter.com/anthonycumia/status/785358293032108032

[theONE]

kek!

that was the fastest and sharpest jab in history of Presidential debates I think

[Dr. MD MD]

that was the fastest and sharpest jab in history of Presidential debates I think

And so very true too.

[starrmtn001]

Best response in the debate:

". . . because you'd be in jail."

BAM!!!

[theONE]

https://twitter.com/anthonycumia/status/785358293032108032

from lips reading I can make it out that Bill is saying:
"I'm going to grab your wife's pussy"
or maybe Bill is saying "I didn't grabbed Hillary by her pussy"

or maybe Bill is saying "I'm going to grab Hillary by her pussy"

something to do with pussy grabbing for sure

[136 or 142]

He wasn't saying the possession of nuclear weapons by Russia is new, he's saying they field newer, more modern nuclear weapons than the US fields.

I unintentionally saw that part of the debate again.  You may sort of have a point.  He said "Russia's nuclear is new and ours is old." 

The problem is his statement is so imprecise it could mean any number of things.  It could mean what you say, or it could mean he simply doesn't have any knowledge and is just throwing things up and hoping some of them stick.

If he had wanted to say what you claim he said he should have said something like "Russian nuclear weapons use modern technology and ours use dated technology."

His use of language is always imprecise, so it's hard to know if there was any strategy here at all. The other possibility is that he meant what you say but he was deliberately imprecise so as to not get asked "do you think the United States needs to upgrade its nuclear weapons and possibly risk setting off a new nuclear arms race?"  which I think is the obvious question in response.

In so far as some of his idiot supporters believe that his love affair with Putin and his lying that he opposed the Iraq war make him the 'peace candidate' I'm sure that's not a question he'd want to be asked.  Of course, he might respond something like "I'll get along so well with Putin by the time I'm done as President neither of us will have any more nuclear weapons, It'll be so good, I'll make your heads spin."

Hillary Clinton has the opposite problem.  I've read the transcript on her comments on 'having a private and public position'  and what she said in the debate is correct.  She was referring to the movie Lincoln when she mentioned that in her speech.  I think she clearly meant the need to have a private and public strategy and not position, but her use of language is mostly so precise that it is hard to see why if she meant 'strategy' why she said 'policy.'

The need for two strategies would refer to a public relations strategy to engage the public and a legislative strategy to engage Congress.  It was the legislative strategy of Lincoln's she was referring to in her speech.

[Dr. MD MD]

I unintentionally saw that part of the debate again.  You may sort of have a point.  He said "Russia's nuclear is new and ours is old." 

The problem is his statement is so imprecise it could mean any number of things.  It could mean what you say, or it could mean he simply doesn't have any knowledge and is just throwing things up and hoping some of them stick.

If he had wanted to say what you claim he said he should have said something like "Russian nuclear weapons use modern technology and ours use dated technology."

His use of language is always imprecise, so it's hard to know if there was any strategy here at all. The other possibility is that he meant what you say but he was deliberately imprecise so as to not get asked "do you think the United States needs to upgrade its nuclear weapons that could risk setting off a new nuclear arms race?"  which I think is the obvious question in response.

In so far as some of his idiot supporters believe that his love affair with Putin and his lying that he opposed the Iraq war make him the 'peace candidate' I'm sure that's not a question he'd want to be asked.  Of course, he might respond something like "I'll get along so well with Putin by the time I'm done as President neither of us will have any more nuclear weapons, It'll be so good, I'll make your heads spin."

Hillary Clinton has the opposite problem.  I've read the transcript on her comments on 'having a private and public policy'  and what she said in the debate is correct.  She was referring to the movie Lincoln when she mentioned that in her speech.  I think she clearly meant the need to have a private and public strategy and not policy, but her use of language is mostly so precise that it is hard to see why if she meant 'strategy' why she said 'policy.'

The need for two strategies would refer to a public relations strategy to engage the public and a legislative strategy to engage Congress.  It was the legislative strategy of Lincoln's she was referring to in her speech.

TL; DR

[136 or 142]

Sorry, like you I'll only look at headline links. Ha. So, tell me? Who founded U of Chicago? Capitalists. Evil men
Zimbabe vs Rhodesia. Or the Rainbow Nation verus the old. With your vaunted "economic models?" For sake of argument and everything is economics? Geez, by your models racism would be standard theory. Not everything is economic or, as Hillary says, "super predators."

I'm  not very impressed by the economics theories taught at the University of Chicago.

You asked if any research was done and I gave you some links.  I don't believe any of these articles are written by economics professors.  I agree not everything is economics, but I do think that nearly all situations can be analyzed through economics and probability and statistics.

[136 or 142]

TL; DR

I'd say that thing on your head throws off a lot more heat than light.

[Dr. MD MD]

I'm  not very impressed by the economics theories taught at the University of Chicago.

You asked if any research was done and I gave you some links.  I don't believe any of these articles are written by economics professors.  I agree not everything is economics, but I do think that nearly all situations can be analyzed through economics and probability and statistics.

Doesn't surprise me. Like Hillary, it's a typical neocon attitude. When you're a hammer ever problem looks like a nail. 

[136 or 142]

This debate may have had the most inept moderation in the history of modern debate moderation, even Crowley.

It's evident now what Donald Trump means by being treated fairly, which he constantly whines that he isn't.  In this case it would have meant he would have been given at least 60 minutes of the 80 minutes of speaking time for the candidates  (to steal from Andrew Coyne.)

[136 or 142]

Doesn't surprise me. Like Hillary, it's a typical neocon attitude. When you're a hammer ever problem looks like a nail. 

As far as I know neo-conservatism refers to an approach to foreign policy.

[Dr. MD MD]

It's evident now what Donald Trump means by being treated fairly, which he constantly whines that he is.  In this case it would have meant he would have been given at least 60 minutes of the 80 minutes of speaking time for the candidates.

So, in other words you're saying, Waaaaa! Baby don't like! 

[Dr. MD MD]

As far as I know neo-conservatism refers to an approach to foreign policy.

Yeah but what you don't know could fill the library of congress. 

[GuerrillaUnReal]

https://twitter.com/anthonycumia/status/785358293032108032

Four of his rape victims were in the audience, I'm sure they were exchanging pie recipes.

[Dr. MD MD]

I'd say that thing on your head throws off a lot more heat than light.

Did you just realize the Brinkley thing was an SCTV bit, you tard?! 

[136 or 142]

Dig up Brinkley and get him high. He'd put those assholes in their places. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0IqulbQKZCM

We agree SCTV is the best. Much better than SNL.

[136 or 142]

Did you just realize the Brinkley thing was an SCTV bit, you tard?! 

Not initially.  It looked like Brinkley to me.  It was only on second glance I recognized it as an SCTV sketch.

I didn't have any interest in listening to a David Brinkley commentary.

[Dr. MD MD]

Not initially.  It looked like Brinkley to me.  It was only on second glance I recognized it as an SCTV sketch.

I don't really blame you. Moranis was a good impersonator! 

[136 or 142]

Yesterday was October 9, that interview was on July 26 (as was written at the bottom of 'reality.') Are you really so stupid as to believe that more wasn't learned since that time?   Of course, you probably just didn't look at the fine print.

[pate]

..
 not very impressed
..

mmm

[136 or 142]

I don't really blame you. Moranis was a good impersonator! 

Yes, he was.

[pate]

...
60 minutes of the 80 minutes of speaking time for the candidates.

Thus, exactly thus...

Blob Where'ye be>?

[Value Of Pi]

I unintentionally saw that part of the debate again.  You may sort of have a point.  He said "Russia's nuclear is new and ours is old." 

The problem is his statement is so imprecise it could mean any number of things.  It could mean what you say, or it could mean he simply doesn't have any knowledge and is just throwing things up and hoping some of them stick.

If he had wanted to say what you claim he said he should have said something like "Russian nuclear weapons use modern technology and ours use dated technology."

His use of language is always imprecise, so it's hard to know if there was any strategy here at all. The other possibility is that he meant what you say but he was deliberately imprecise so as to not get asked "do you think the United States needs to upgrade its nuclear weapons and possibly risk setting off a new nuclear arms race?"  which I think is the obvious question in response.

In so far as some of his idiot supporters believe that his love affair with Putin and his lying that he opposed the Iraq war make him the 'peace candidate' I'm sure that's not a question he'd want to be asked.  Of course, he might respond something like "I'll get along so well with Putin by the time I'm done as President neither of us will have any more nuclear weapons, It'll be so good, I'll make your heads spin."

Hillary Clinton has the opposite problem.  I've read the transcript on her comments on 'having a private and public policy'  and what she said in the debate is correct.  She was referring to the movie Lincoln when she mentioned that in her speech.  I think she clearly meant the need to have a private and public strategy and not policy, but her use of language is mostly so precise that it is hard to see why if she meant 'strategy' why she said 'policy.'

The need for two strategies would refer to a public relations strategy to engage the public and a legislative strategy to engage Congress.  It was the legislative strategy of Lincoln's she was referring to in her speech.

The point Trump makes about Russian nuclear forces being newer is something he's said before. It's maybe a quarter-true, since the Russians have added a new ICBM to their forces. Our ICBMs are older but just as effective at destroying Russia or anyone else. Modernization is already in the works.

Trump ignores the fact that our counter ICBM tech and forces are far beyond anything the Russians have. So, overall, our nuclear forces have been greatly improved while the Russians have taken only minor steps. He's ignorant on this subject, like most other subjects.

[136 or 142]

The point Trump makes about Russian nuclear forces being newer is something he's said before. It's maybe a quarter-true, since the Russians have added a new ICBM to their forces. Our ICBMs are older but just as effective at destroying Russia or anyone else. Modernization is already in the works.

Trump ignores the fact that our counter ICBM tech and forces are far beyond anything the Russians have. So, overall, our nuclear forces have been greatly improved while the Russians have taken only minor steps. He's ignorant on this subject, like most other subjects.

Thanks, good to know one of the three things I threw out as possibles stuck.  Even here, you cleaned up his language.  Had he said 'newer' his meaning would have been clear, but he said "Russia's nuclear is new."

[136 or 142]

I posted this earlier from Teagan Goddard's Political Wire, his opinion of the debate.
https://politicalwire.com/

"Trump’s pivot â€" starting with his “apology” video late Friday night â€" was to go full Breitbart. He’s now speaking only to the audience for a speculated media venture. Its not a mistake that his top advisers are former Fox News chief Roger Ailes and Breitbart’s Stephen Bannon."

I think it's fair to say that this media venture Goddard is referring to is pure speculation.  I think the simpler theory is that Trump himself is a genuine believer in political conspiracy theories and genuinely believes the nonsense written in Breitbart et al. 

This also explains why Trump hasn't learned a thing about the issues since his entering the race:  why should he learn conventionally believed facts and arguments about the issues if he thinks all of these things are just misinformation and the reality is the conspiracy theories? 

This doesn't hold for everything (like his simplistic response to what he'd replace Obamacare with once it was repealed) but it is an explanation for his lack of knowledge on economic and foreign policy.

I know Nancy Reagan believed in astrology and there are some claims her husband also 'consulted the charts' before pursuing actions, but then, there were also claims that he was a President who believed in the literal interpretation of the Bible, and so would not try and prevent Armageddon, and that clearly wasn't true.  I'm not aware of any President who actually believed political conspiracy theories.

Here in Canada, the closest I know of that we had was William Lyon McKenzie King (who is also ranked as one of Canada's best Prime Ministers) who was known to consult with his the dead (including his dog) via seances as part of his consultations on policy.

https://www.collectionscanada.gc.ca/king/023011-1070.08-e.html

No doubt some of the Trumptards with longer memories would bring up Hillary Clinton's consultations with the dead Eleanor Roosevelt, but I think in her case it was just roll playing and certainly did not involve the use of seances.  Richard Nixon was also known, at least during the time of Watergate, to stare at the portraits of former Presidents and imagine having conversations with them about his problems.

[Yorkshire pud]

The Greatest Englishman to ever live's opinion.

...thus confirming you really are a top weight idiot. Oh boy, you really believe that? 

[Value Of Pi]

He's still sniffing and seems to be short of breath. Couldn't be another defective mike. Will we get to hear more about this before the next tape comes out? I hope so because we need some light diversion.

[136 or 142]

He's still sniffing and seems to be short of breath. Couldn't be another defective mike. Will we ger to hear more about this before the next tape comes out? I hope so because we need some light diversion.

He seemed to be completely sedated for the first 20 minutes or so of the debate and I speculated he was drugged up, but a friend of mine replied he was just nervous.  I think my friend was correct.

[pate]

He's still sniffing and seems to be short of breath. .

He seemed to be completely sedated ,

...thus confirming you really are a top weight idiot.

.
mm...

=mm.simper.mm

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5_P6vnsVSZg