Donald Trump

Billy86

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

Do people still describe playboy as porn? i only read it for the articles myself.

Well if they do, I wonder what their thoughts on Trumps father building a chunk of his wealth through brothels would be, or on the Trump Taj Mahal offering what was apparently the US' first in-casino (edit: typo) strip club.

Somehow though, I have a feeling it would be conveniently ignored. Almost as if they didn't care at all about porn or strip clubs, but were just desperately clutching at straws after the disaster that was the first debate. I don't know, call me crazy if you must.

ebbsy

More outrage = more free publicity = Hillary pushed off the front pages.

Trump for Potus. It's inevitable no matter what happens in the next 2 debates.

Billy86

ebbsy wrote: »

More outrage = more free publicity = Hillary pushed off the front pages.

Trump for Potus. It's inevitable no matter what happens in the next 2 debates.

Actually the news has been on Trump falling further behind, today.

InTheTrees

BorneTobyWilde wrote: »

Trump may have called her MIss Piggy in a joking way, not a serious way with anger and disdain.

Because all men know women love it when men joke about how fat they are.

pumpkin4life

ebbsy wrote: »

More outrage = more free publicity = Hillary pushed off the front pages.

Trump for Potus. It's inevitable no matter what happens in the next 2 debates.

The debate wasn't about winning in a rational, technical sense. On that case, Hillary clearly won, but that doesn't matter.

The debate was about being more likeable, trying to cancel out your biggest weaknesses for undecided voters.

Trump = crazy unpresidental fùcker.

Clinton = evil Globalist fùcker/health issues.

In that way, I think Trump may have edged it, but to call it a success/disaster for either a big naff.

I think the results from many of the online polls might support this.

iLikeWaffles

What's the date of the Vice-Presidential debates 8/10? What's the date of the next two debates?

Tuesday, October 4, 2016
Moderator: Elaine Quijano, Anchor, CBSN and Correspondent, CBS News
Location: Longwood University, Farmville, VA

The Vice Presidential debate will be divided into nine time segments of approximately 10 minutes each. The moderator will ask an opening question, after which each candidate will have two minutes to respond. The moderator will use the balance of the time in the segment for a deeper discussion of the topic.

Sunday, October 9, 2016
Second presidential debate
Moderator: Martha Raddatz, Chief Global Affairs Correspondent and Co-Anchor of "This Week," ABC
Moderator: Anderson Cooper, Anchor, CNN
Location: Washington University in St. Louis, St. Louis, MO

The second presidential debate will take the form of a town meeting, in which half of the questions will be posed directly by citizen participants and the other half will be posed by the moderator based on topics of broad public interest as reflected in social media and other sources. The candidates will have two minutes to respond and there will be an additional minute for the moderator to facilitate further discussion. The town meeting participants will be uncommitted voters selected by the Gallup Organization.

Wednesday, October 19, 2016
Third presidential debate
Moderator: Chris Wallace, Anchor, Fox News Sunday
Location: University of Nevada, Las Vegas, Las Vegas, NV

Billy86

pumpkin4life wrote: »

I think the results from many of the online polls might support this.

Those polls are anonymous and not really indicative of much of anything - especially since it came out that the 200,000 subscribers to the_donald subreddit and more again on 4chan were going out of their way to try and manipulate them. Even FOX News are saying to ignore the online polls - http://uk.businessinsider.com/fox-news-online-debate-polls-trump-drudge-2016-9?r=US&IR=T

Trump came across as unhinged, unprepared and incompetent. This has been reflected in the most recent actual verifiable polls, which show Clinton having won decisively.

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/election-update-early-polls-suggest-a-post-debate-bounce-for-clinton/

Every scientific poll we’ve encountered so far suggests that voters thought Hillary Clinton beat Donald Trump in Monday night’s debate. In fact, some of them showed her winning by a wide margin — wide enough to make it a good bet (though not a guarantee) that she’ll gain in horse-race polls against Trump over the next week or so.

But so far, we’ve seen just two polls released that tested Clinton’s standing against Trump after the debate. They have pretty good news for Clinton, but I’d recommend some caution until we get more data.

Capt'n Midnight

Trent Houseboat wrote: »

They have articles?

Yes and there's a government supported braille edition.

https://www.loc.gov/nls/reference/guides/magazines.html

Playboy: Entertainment for Men (PBY)

11 issues/year
e-braille (BARD), press braille
Fiction, interviews, and articles with a male perspective.

First Up

ebbsy wrote:

Trump for Potus. It's inevitable no matter what happens in the next 2 debates.

You have a very low opinion of the intelligence of the American electorate.

Trent Houseboat

I tell you what that vice presidential debate is going to be as interesting as a mayonnaise on supermarket white sliced pan sandwich.

iLikeWaffles

Trent Houseboat wrote: »

I tell you what that vice presidential debate is going to be as interesting as a mayonnaise on supermarket white sliced pan sandwich.

Hmm. iLikeMayo. Not for sam. UP THE DUBS...

PopePalpatine

Trent Houseboat wrote: »

I tell you what that vice presidential debate is going to be as interesting as a mayonnaise on supermarket white sliced pan sandwich.

I'm just wondering, has any election ever been swayed by the Vice Presidential Debate? I wouldn't say 2008 counts because Palin was off-putting enough when she did it. :pac:

iLikeWaffles

PopePalpatine wrote: »

I'm just wondering, has any election ever been swayed by the Vice Presidential Debate? I wouldn't say 2008 counts because Palin was off-putting enough when she did it. :pac:

Well with the Trump camp underlining Health issues for the opposition. The vice-presidential debate maybe a key winning factor! Trump loses and his running mate wins their still left with trump Clinton wins and her running mate wins or losses they are still left with one better choice than they previously had.

ebbsy

First Up wrote: »

ebbsy wrote:

Trump for Potus. It's inevitable no matter what happens in the next 2 debates.

You have a very low opinion of the intelligence of the American electorate.

They want to be entertained. Nothing wrong with that.

CruelCoin

pumpkin4life wrote: »

Clinton = health issues.

In that way, I think Trump may have edged it,

How do you come to that conclusion?

Clinton didn't go near her water once and coughed never, while Trump was sniffing as if there was a open faucet in his nose and couldn't stay off the water.

From the debate i was watching, Clinton seemed in far, far better health.

Billy86

CruelCoin wrote: »

How do you come to that conclusion?

Clinton didn't go near her water once and coughed never, while Trump was sniffing as if there was a open faucet in his nose and couldn't stay off the water.

From the debate i was watching, Clinton seemed in far, far better health.

You'd have to wonder if Donald Trump even has 4 years left in him, president or not. He looked ill up there. He looked very very ill. It's clear he is a sick man, with men having a shorter life expectancy and the fact he is older than Trump. Now I don't wanna... I don't wanna say anything, but it's sad to see. He's clearly a sick man. It's been showing with him saying all these things and then forgetting he said them, like not paying taxes being "smart" and supporting the war on Iraq, but man... He doesn't look healthy.

Trent Houseboat

Billy86 wrote: »

You'd have to wonder if Donald Trump even has 4 years left in him, president or not. He looked ill up there. He looked very very ill. It's clear he is a sick man, with men having a shorter life expectancy and the fact he is older than Trump. Now I don't wanna... I don't wanna say anything, but it's sad to see. He's clearly a sick man. It's been showing with him saying all these things and then forgetting he said them, like not paying taxes being "smart" and supporting the war on Iraq, but man... He doesn't look healthy.

He also admitted regularly forgetting to take his cholesterol medication. Which is obviously dangerous for an obese 70 year old who gets no exercise but it's that cearly his mind is going is the sad thing.

CruelCoin

Trent Houseboat wrote: »

but it's that cearly his mind is going is the sad thing.

If you compare a video of him in his late 30's early 40's, he was well-spoken, articulate and perfectly likable.

He can't even say a single unbroken sentence now.

An excerpt from the debate:

"And I think Secretary Clinton and myself would agree very much when you look at what ISIS is doing with the Internet, they’re beating us at our own game. ISIS. So we had to get very very tough on cyber and cyber warfare. It is a huge problem. I have a son -- he’s ten years old. He has computers. He is so good with these computers. It’s unbelievable."

Rambling like this is throughout the transcript.....

ohnonotgmail

CruelCoin wrote: »

If you compare a video of him in his late 30's early 40's, he was well-spoken, articulate and perfectly likable.

He can't even say a single unbroken sentence now.

An excerpt from the debate:

"And I think Secretary Clinton and myself would agree very much when you look at what ISIS is doing with the Internet, they’re beating us at our own game. ISIS. So we had to get very very tough on cyber and cyber warfare. It is a huge problem. I have a son -- he’s ten years old. He has computers. He is so good with these computers. It’s unbelievable."

Rambling like this is throughout the transcript.....

its like listening to a grandpa simpson story.

seamus

Billy86 wrote: »

Actually the news has been on Trump falling further behind, today.

Indeed, the smear machine has been in full flow since the debate, with more and more stories coming out about suppliers and professionals that Trump has scammed out of money, and more evidence of his anti-everything-but-rich-WASP-men attitudes.

There'll be no honour in being a fair-playing loser in this election. Clinton's campaign need to play this really dirty in order to bury Trump.

First Up wrote: »

You have a very low opinion of the intelligence of the American electorate.

To be fair, they did elect GWB a second time, even after it was known that he started a war with Iraq for no reason other than revenge, and that he didn't actually win the first election.
So we have good cause to be concerned that they'll elect another idiot.

nomadchocolate

Clinton presents the illusion of the "sane" choice but she will be just as desperate as Trump.

Shocking how both parties were unable to find better candidates. Clinton was only nominated because (and because she and the DNC fudged the numbers) she feels like it was "owed to her".

pumpkin4life

CruelCoin wrote: »

How do you come to that conclusion?

Clinton didn't go near her water once and coughed never, while Trump was sniffing as if there was a open faucet in his nose and couldn't stay off the water.

From the debate i was watching, Clinton seemed in far, far better health.

Clinton fainted in front of her car on 9/11 day, in addition to the plethora of videos on her coughing, being held climbing up stairs, the Parkinsons, the body double all of that all of that. Is that true? Fùck if I know. That's the perception though. For undecided voters, she looks like a health risk waiting to happen. That's the consensus in the U.S for undecided voters. The car moment right fùcked up her campaign.

Clinton's biggest goal for that debate was to look healthy enough and act aggressive, so as to show "I can deal with anyone" kind of thing. Voters then could say, "her health issues not a problem, I'll vote for her." It's also why she wore the big red dress as well. Red = aggression. Clothes candidates wear are there to make them more persuasive to you.

I think she succeeded pretty well on that one, but she had this weird, Joker smile, so maybe not.

Trump's bluster and being mad fiend, for undecided voters, he looks like a "he make fun of my hands, launch the nuclear bombs" impulsive, unpresidential kind of guy.

Trumps's biggest goal for that debate was to look calm, restrained and not crazy, presidential without being a pussy. Undecided voters could say "he looks like he can keep the cool. I'll vote for him." That's why he wore a much darker suit and blue tie. Blue = calming effect. Same thing as Hillers.

I think he got defensive at parts, but overall he did ok. Compare him to the Republican debates. He was more restrained than usual.

There's a lot of time left, but I think the second presidential debate is going to follow the same pattern.

Hillary = I'm healthy and not evil!

Trump = I can act calm and presidential!

And the usual people saying Hillary destroyed Trump etc with the voters saying otherwise.

The third debate will be the actual bloodbath one.

Billy86

seamus wrote: »

Indeed, the smear machine has been in full flow since the debate, with more and more stories coming out about suppliers and professionals that Trump has scammed out of money, and more evidence of his anti-everything-but-rich-WASP-men attitudes.

There'll be no honour in being a fair-playing loser in this election. Clinton's campaign need to play this really dirty in order to bury Trump.

Completely agreed on the no honour in losing fair part, it's just funny the desperate angles they're trying to take. Now they're claiming Clinton had an 'invisible earpiece' in during the debate - something put down as not just false, but a 'pants on fire' lie from Politifact today (with supporting images & close ups of said ear): http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/sep/28/blog-posting/claims-hillary-clinton-wore-earpiece-debate-dont-h/

Claims like this, that it was unfair of the moderator to have the audacity to call some of his more outrageous lies for the lies that they were during the debate (err, kind of the job of a moderator), and that his mic was 'rigged' (which anyone and everyone who watched the debate knows is completely false) so so on are doing him zero favours.

Truth is, if his mic was defective and didn't work it would have been a lot better for him. Then we wouldn't be hearing about his 10 year old son tackling ISIS online or whatever the hell that was about, Trump admitting to (even bragging about) not paying taxes which he's since tried to claim he never said, etc etc. The first 30 minutes he didn't do all that well, but for the last hour he melted down in a way rarely seen during political debates. Not sure if you stayed up for it or recorded it, but it was a sight to behold.

Even his own advisors have basically spent the last few days pleading with him to just shut up. But he won't - he's a classic narcissist with skin as thick as tracing paper, and can't get enough of trying to tell everyone how amazing he is at everything without ever stopping to assess the validity of his own statements or... you know, the whole running the country bit.

My guess is he calls Clinton a whore before the end of the debates. Not a 'whore for corporate America' or anything like that. Just a whore, or at least something to that extent. It was clear by the end that he's just not cut out for politics, whatsoever.

Christy42

pumpkin4life wrote: »

Clinton fainted in front of her car on 9/11 day, in addition to the plethora of videos on her coughing, being held climbing up stairs, the Parkinsons, the body double all of that all of that. Is that true? Fùck if I know. That's the perception though. For undecided voters, she looks like a health risk waiting to happen. That's the consensus in the U.S for undecided voters. The car moment right fùcked up her campaign.

Clinton's biggest goal for that debate was to look healthy enough and act aggressive, so as to show "I can deal with anyone" kind of thing. Voters then could say, "her health issues not a problem, I'll vote for her." It's also why she wore the big red dress as well. Red = aggression. Clothes candidates wear are there to make them more persuasive to you.

I think she succeeded pretty well on that one, but she had this weird, Joker smile, so maybe not.

Trump's bluster and being mad fiend, for undecided voters, he looks like a "he make fun of my hands, launch the nuclear bombs" impulsive, unpresidential kind of guy.

Trumps's biggest goal for that debate was to look calm, restrained and not crazy, presidential without being a pussy. Undecided voters could say "he looks like he can keep the cool. I'll vote for him." That's why he wore a much darker suit and blue tie. Blue = calming effect. Same thing as Hillers.

I think he got defensive at parts, but overall he did ok. Compare him to the Republican debates. He was more restrained than usual.

There's a lot of time left, but I think the second presidential debate is going to follow the same pattern.

Hillary = I'm healthy and not evil!

Trump = I can act calm and presidential!

And the usual people saying Hillary destroyed Trump etc with the voters saying otherwise.

The third debate will be the actual bloodbath one.

You have a low bar of what looking presidential means (or I guess you are saying the voters do at which point you may be right).

The man is unaware of how long Isis has been operating and lost it saying he pays no taxes. You can tell he has been itching to brag about that for ages and finally the strain of holding it back became too much.

Of course Hillary destroyed Trump. The issue is that the bar for Trump is so low while Hillary's is quite high. Trump's main goal is to not say anything stupid for 90 minutes and be kinda likable and he still struggled. I mean sure he was restrained but only in comparison to himself.

pumpkin4life

Business Insider Link wrote: »

The only scientific survey conducted in the debate's immediate aftermath was the CNN/ORC instant poll, which showed that viewers thought Hillary Clinton handily defeated Trump. Respondents to a Morning Consult poll released Wednesday also said, 49% to 26%, that Clinton bested Trump in the debate.

This poll?

CNN wrote: »

A total of 521 adult registered voters who watched the debate were interviewed by telephone nationwide by live interviewers
calling both landline and cell phones. Among the entire sample, 41% described themselves as Democrats, 26% described
themselves as Republicans, and 33% described themselves as independents or members of another party.

Crosstabs on the following pages only include results for subgroups with enough unweighted cases to produce a sampling
error of +/- 8.5 percentage points or less. Some subgroups represent too small a share of the national population to produce
crosstabs with an acceptable sampling error.

Interviews were conducted among these subgroups, but results for groups witha sampling error larger than +/-8.5 percentage points are not displayed and instead are denoted with "NA".[/B]

A university stats student would be fùcking done for a poll that poor.

Even Nate Silver admitted the poor quality of the polls:

Nate Silver wrote: »

There are other reasons to be cautious, too. Polls conducted over a one- or two-day period, like the Morning Consult and Echelon Insights polls, can suffer from low response rates, since the pollsters won’t have time to recontact voters who they missed the first time around. That could plausibly bias the poll toward whichever candidate has the most enthusiastic supporters at the time of the poll, making it less representative. Many traditional pollsters prefer their polls to be in the field for three or four days, and we won’t see any results from polls like those until Friday at the soonest.

Another complication is that it can be hard to separate voters’ reaction to the debate itself from their reaction to the media’s reaction to the debate. By that I mean: Clinton has had some tough news cycles lately, so getting some better headlines could help her, and that could plausibly also affect the polls. Or maybe not, since Trump has a knack for turning the news cycle on its head.

He's right, but I think he's wrong about the Clinton part. Swamp out Trump and we're good.

Which leaves the online polls.

I took a look around Billy and ok, you're right on this one.

However, that brings up another interesting question.

Are Trump voters more enthusiastic than Hillary supporters?

Where were the Hillary supporters doing the same thing? Where they doing the same thing? Why weren't doing the same thing?

Billy86

pumpkin4life wrote: »

However, that brings up another interesting question.

Are Trump voters more enthusiastic than Hillary supporters?

Where were the Hillary supporters doing the same thing? Where they doing the same thing? Why weren't doing the same thing?

Absolutely, yes -- at least at the hardcore base level. While many of Clinton's 'supporters' openly admit she's the lesser of two evils, the idolisation and hero worship among Trump supporters (to the point of outright denying reality) has led them into a fervor. For all my issues with Trump I have repeatedly said he is a phenomenal salesperson, and has used this to whip his base into a heavily enthusiastic bunch. The problem though is, many of them are on board solely for the chance to discriminate and be abusive to Mexicans, Muslims, women and black people - somewhat similar to post Brexit UK it's their chance to feel 'validated' - which continues to alienate large chunks of the electorate. It's been a recurring them in the last two GOP primaries that their voters don't seem to have learned from - politicians have to race as far right as they can to win the nomination, then race back into the centre for the election, but the problem is all of what they said/did in the primaries is still there on full display for everyone during the general

He however has also done a very good job with the disillusioned 'rust-belt' workers who have lost all faith in either political establishment. That's the one voting bloc of Trump's I can easily understand (though I entirely disagree with - I think he would use the presidency to benefit the 'Trump brand' and profitability, possibly above all else), again due to his fantastic salesmanship.

Also is the fact that the Trump campaign is ran by Breitbart, who many of the 4chan/the_donald reddit appear to be fully indoctrinated, unquestioning believers in. Now I can't stand Breitbart and I especially can't stand their chief editor Stephen Bannon (now Trump's campaign manager) but he is highly, highly skilled at manipulating the facts and distorting the truth. I don't really even mean that in a bad way - he is exceptionally skilled at what he does, .

Of course there is also the childish element, which is seen when much of this subsection of Trump supporters are challenged with regards to Trump's actual policies or stances (they usually don't know what they are beyond 'Mexican wall' and 'no Muslims' - it took months and months of me repeatedly asking on this thread and others before anything was offered in return), which is why they may have figured online polls would do anything but cause confusion as to who actually 'won' the debate in the short time until the verifiable polls came out.

That might have actually been the case had this been a typical debate, but rather it was Trump eating his own face in public for at least an hour of it. I think that also ties in with his advisors asking him to stay on topic. I have very little faith he will though, hence this being the 3rd (I believe?) campaign manager of his so far. Donald Trump doesn't want to listen to anyone but Donald Trump, and the problem with that which was on full display Monday is... Donald Trump is not very intelligent or clued in when it comes to politics. Bully-boy boardroom tactics rarely ever play out well on the public stage, especially when denials of what he just said (e.g. not paying taxes being 'smart') are right there on camera for all to see. My guess is we'll see plenty of ads from the Clinton campaign featuring that line once the final debate is over.


TL;DR - elements of Trump's base (particularly the core) are considerably more enthusiastic about him than Clinton's are about her, but the problem with that is that it has come at, and continues to come at, alienating huge, huge parts of the electorate. He'd have lost this election long ago against a better or more likeable politician because of this (as would Clinton against a better GOP nominee due to her own faults, of which there are many)

CruelCoin

pumpkin4life wrote: »

There's a lot of time left, but I think the second presidential debate is going to follow the same pattern.

Trump = I can act calm and presidential!

Did you watch the same debate i did?

Did you see this?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b2Ec_oHjEFM

There wasn't anything even remotely presidential in his behaviour on the stage.

And as for him continually cutting across Clinton with "wrong wrong wrong", the fact checkers were having a field day providing links to exactly where he did in fact give support to the war.

He lied, and he was an ass about it to boot.

He's a manchild.

Aidric

Watched the debate in full this evening and it's hard not to feel anything but embarrassed for Trump. He just kept repeating the same well worn populist spiel and when asked for policy specifics he went on the attack.

It's hard to believe that someone could be so disillusioned as to consider giving this blowhard a vote.

Sweetemotion

Aidric wrote: »

Watched the debate in full this evening and it's hard not to feel anything but embarrassed for Trump. He just kept repeating the same well worn populist spiel and when asked for policy specifics he went on the attack.

It's hard to believe that someone could be so disillusioned as to consider giving this blowhard a vote.

It's hard to believe, there are people who have a different opinion than yours?

First Up

Sweetemotion wrote:

It's hard to believe, there are people who have a different opinion than yours?

No, its hard to believe why they would.