Vivian on 11/10/2016 at 16:08
Quote Posted by Tony_Tarantula
Remind me. How did you feel about Dick Cheney, Halliburton, and Iraq?
Remind you? Tony I have never had a conversation with you about Dick Cheney. What are you on about? I don't even know who or what a Halliburton is?
Yakoob on 11/10/2016 at 17:47
Mulling this over, I think Trump "won this debate" overall - he was on the offensive, even to a fault, but Hilary's defensive responses put her as a weaker candidate.
I don't normally follow US politics (still can't vote) but made an except this time. Sadly it just reminds me why I avoid it - it's a shit show that casts both as terrible in their own ways every time I take a look...
Renzatic on 11/10/2016 at 18:44
[video=youtube;SzcjexXZ6yg]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SzcjexXZ6yg[/video]
heywood on 11/10/2016 at 18:52
I heard about the Kelly Oxford Twitter thread too. It was covered on a radio program I listen to. I have not heard or seen any reactions like what demagogue described, but I guess I shouldn't be surprised consider the kind of campaign we've had.
To me, there is a big difference between women sharing personal anecdotes of sexual harassment for the purpose of raising public awareness vs. women forming support groups because they can't keep themselves from physically shaking when watching Trump speak at the debate. One is a reasonable reaction and the other seems like hyperbole.
Quote Posted by demagogue
Of course I'm biased, that was the whole point. Two big groups in my feed are both admitting they can't bear to listen to the other side, and I'm copying their reasons pretty much verbatim. One is a mirror of an abusive bf/husband they all know, the other is a harpy screeching bitch. They're not even in the same galaxy of moral equivalence. That disparity struck me & I was pissed.
As for "those women", they were overrunning the FB comments on the videos of the debate making the rounds. One had like, I don't know, in the 100s of comments. They were all sobbing and shaking, yes. Or at least they said they were. That's why it struck me as much as it did. It was like the consensus position, once one admitted it they came out of the woodwork. The moderate ones only felt physically ill and just holding it together. If you think I'm exaggerating, I invite you on to those threads and tell those women to get over themselves, and see how that goes over.
Edit. Point of logic, obviously it's not all women that go ape shit, and a few threads don't say anything empirically about any trends. The polls have Trump at more than a 10 point gap for women voters, which probably translates from mild to serious disgust for Trump in the 60% range, but most not getting emotion involved. Within that group is a small but livid contingent including some number of the ~30% of women in the US which stats report have suffered some form of domestic abuse by their partner, which in the US would amount to >40 million women. Among that group--even a small % is a lot of people--is probably the core group that's not taking the latest news about Trump well, and read it into the debates. Anyway that's the story that kept coming up in the threads. They couldn't separate the transparent gaslighting techniques he used in the debate from that used by an abusive partner or from the latest news. That thread was of course only anecdotal and not data to say anything, but the numbers of people making the same point made an impression. In contrast, the "can't watch harpy bitch" comments were rampant among friends and threads alike, so I take it much more widespread.
I am one of those people who can't stand watching either candidate speak. As a person, I think Trump is an annoying, offensive, egomaniacal buffoon. Before his campaign, I never liked him but never really cared about him either. He always seemed like just some rich fool that the tabloids circled around. It doesn't surprise me in the least that he has groped women. As an ostentatious rich former beauty pageant owner who has rotated trophy wives and used to talk like a playboy, it completely fits the stereotype. But I can't get really worked up about him because he doesn't wield any political power, and I've never thought for a second that he will become President. To me, he's just a foil for a broken national party with ineffective leaders and I feel a little bit of schadenfreude watching his candidacy tear the party apart.
On the other hand, I hate the Clintons. And I don't mean that I find Hillary's voice to be shrill or anything trivial like that. There are times when Bill or Hillary has made my skin crawl, face turn red, and feel physically angry. I genuinely hate both of them. I hate what they've done to transform the Democratic party. I blame them for a lot of the political polarization which started during the 1990s. I also give them a lot of blame for helping to move the political center to the right. I hate the way they play ugly politics. I hate the way they are untouchable and can get people to shamelessly defend them no matter what they do. And I just hate the kind of people they are.
nickie on 11/10/2016 at 19:16
Quote Posted by heywood
To me, there is a big difference between women sharing personal anecdotes of sexual harassment for the purpose of raising public awareness vs. women forming support groups because they can't keep themselves from physically shaking when watching Trump speak at the debate. One is a reasonable reaction and the other seems like hyperbole.
I'll go along with that. I think that if the apology had been a real apology, one might think he meant it and it would have mitigated a little. Otherwise, I just think he was sorry he was caught out and he thinks that it's nothing much to take advantage of people who are necessarily subservient to those who have power over others. I certainly don't shake watching him speak and he, himself, doesn't remind me of anyone.
It's the attitude that it's normal and therefore OK that gets up my nose. He was 59 (?) when he said those things. It's Dark Ages mentality and the sort of attitude you'd expect from 15 year-old lads.
I don't actually hate anyone I don't know but my sister makes the sign of the cross whenever she sees Hillary on tv.
Edit. I tell a lie. I hate manipulative bastards of whatever gender.
demagogue on 11/10/2016 at 21:23
It wasn't a reaction I really felt or got either. I just felt like reporting it because of the "charmer" point. Really my post was meant for the SOB Trump-cheerleaders in my FB feed, but I'm not touching this election there because FB is a wasteland. Here it's at least open battle where people can say what they want.
Anyway, as for me, Trump has shifted in my mind from serial bullshitter & all talk to serial manipulator I would be loathe to have around where you can't get away, which is what a presidency feels like now.
On the other hand I can get the reflexive turnoff to the Clintons and Obama, although I don't really share it. Hillary, Barry, and Slick are all lawyers, so they're in my world & I get their thinking. But I'm also constantly conscious that people are naturally suspicious of lawyers and the weird way they talk, hedging their words. It comes across as arrogance, most of all to Southerners, where "New York lawyer" is the epitome of privleged and arrogant (speaking as a Southerner New York lawyer who went to NYU lawschool myself.) Worth mentioning Obama & Hillary are northern raised Dem presidents, breaking the southern-only trend since JFK (well, Chicago is midwest, kind of neutral territory). Obama himself exudes a kind of overt pride that comes across as arrogance as his natural persona. It doesn't really bother me, but I recognize it. I know this type in lawschool, the guy that looks like he's pushing too hard and could use a dose of humility. But then he can turn on the charm & be legit funny too, so sort of gets a pass.
For Hillary I don't see it as a natural fit. She's more of a wonk (policy junkie), although she knows what she wants to do so can't come across with any kind of Carter-like humility. My main feeling for her is unimpressed. I wouldn't see her rising in the ranks outside her connection to Bill. She's not like a firebrand speaker that inspires or moves people like Obama, Bill himself even, or other historic personalities, Teddy, Ann Richards, or half the Dem side of the Senate. But whatever. Being a wet towel of a speaker isn't the worst. I think she's competent in policy, and she's on the cosmopolitan side -- although I'm disappointed she's turned against the TPP (Asia/
Pacific trade zone) which is Obama's most important contribution after Obama-care, and I actually hope she was lying about her opposition just to get elected.
Nicker on 12/10/2016 at 01:26
Quote Posted by Tony_Tarantula
This Sunday, AFTER the discussion that I posted occurred, Hillary re-iterated her support for a no fly zone. If we assume that she is competent at foreign policy (as her supporters in this thread have been vivaciously saying she is), then that means she is fully aware of this assessment and intends for that to be the outcome.
Assume away but try not to conflate. Supporting a no-fly zone and starting a war to establish one are very different matters. I think Hillary knows the difference. So far I haven't heard her muse about, oh....... nuking Europe, unlike certain other candidates for the presidency.
Jason Moyer on 12/10/2016 at 03:31
The truth is, we all won:
[video=youtube;Fq_ZosSy_9I]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fq_ZosSy_9I[/video]
heywood on 12/10/2016 at 20:49
Quote Posted by demagogue
It wasn't a reaction I really felt or got either. I just felt like reporting it because of the "charmer" point. Really my post was meant for the SOB Trump-cheerleaders in my FB feed, but I'm not touching this election there because FB is a wasteland. Here it's at least open battle where people can say what they want.
Anyway, as for me, Trump has shifted in my mind from serial bullshitter & all talk to serial manipulator I would be loathe to have around where you can't get away, which is what a presidency feels like now.
On the other hand I can get the reflexive turnoff to the Clintons and Obama, although I don't really share it. Hillary, Barry, and Slick are all lawyers, so they're in my world & I get their thinking. But I'm also constantly conscious that people are naturally suspicious of lawyers and the weird way they talk, hedging their words. It comes across as arrogance, most of all to Southerners, where "New York lawyer" is the epitome of privleged and arrogant (speaking as a Southerner New York lawyer who went to NYU lawschool myself.) Worth mentioning Obama & Hillary are northern raised Dem presidents, breaking the southern-only trend since JFK (well, Chicago is midwest, kind of neutral territory). Obama himself exudes a kind of overt pride that comes across as arrogance as his natural persona. It doesn't really bother me, but I recognize it. I know this type in lawschool, the guy that looks like he's pushing too hard and could use a dose of humility. But then he can turn on the charm & be legit funny too, so sort of gets a pass.
For Hillary I don't see it as a natural fit. She's more of a wonk (policy junkie), although she knows what she wants to do so can't come across with any kind of Carter-like humility. My main feeling for her is unimpressed. I wouldn't see her rising in the ranks outside her connection to Bill. She's not like a firebrand speaker that inspires or moves people like Obama, Bill himself even, or other historic personalities, Teddy, Ann Richards, or half the Dem side of the Senate. But whatever. Being a wet towel of a speaker isn't the worst. I think she's competent in policy, and she's on the cosmopolitan side -- although I'm disappointed she's turned against the TPP (Asia/
Pacific trade zone) which is Obama's most important contribution after Obama-care, and I actually hope she was lying about her opposition just to get elected.
I don't hate Obama, more like disappointed. More so during his first term. Right now I would be happy to have another Obama term compared to the alternative.
I am against TPP and TTIP, but I suspect they will go through anyway. There is way too much time and money invested already, too much lobbying power behind it, and potential campaign contributions on the line. Hillary flip-flopped because it's politically expedient to be against it during the campaign, and there is no action for her to take on it anyway so no risk of being called on it. If the Republicans lose the Senate, I think there is a good chance they will slide TPP through in the lame duck session. If it isn't touched this year, it could still die in the Senate if there is enough public outcry. I wrote my Senators last year against fast track and they both supported it anyway, but they said they received a lot of constituent feedback and the one who is up for re-election this year has flip-flopped during the campaign. I'm still hoping there will be enough public opposition to defeat it, but I expect to be disappointed. Once the election is over, the pressure will be off.
Goldmoon Dawn on 13/10/2016 at 01:14
Quote Posted by Jason Moyer
The truth is, we all won:
You do realize that just 4 posts earlier ITT, Renz already pointed that out! You do read these threads, right? ;) Jason Moyer, ladies and gentlemen. Oh yeah, you know thats right. And nice work Vae, also itt.
