This debate is more amusing.
"You'd be jail" line had me laughing. Anyone else tuning in?
This debate is more amusing.
"You'd be jail" line had me laughing. Anyone else tuning in?
I've never seen someone provide so many dumb and simplistic responses in such a short period of time.
Hope is the denial of reality
He didn't try in the first debate. He just went on one rant after another. In this one, he tried. But that entailed using the words "best", "bad" and "disaster" over and over again. He spent over 5 minutes talking about Obamacare without offering a single substantive critique of the policy itself. His response to Islamophobia in the US was to talk about the importance of saying Radical Islam. His plan to fight ISIS consists entirely of being unpredictable. I don't even have the words to describe that. And the best part of the debate was his promise to use the presidency to settle personal disputes. That's just what we need in America.
Hope is the denial of reality
The opening half was just stunning. But I think Trump actually did better than last time and stopped taking on water. At least for now.
Both of them ramble, Trump worst of all. At least Clinton rambles about something that looks like [quasi-socialist] policy [that she may or may not believe in]. I'm not sure I've seen a debate where people communicate about ideas so sloppily.
Inshallah Gary Johnson will be in the last one. Also he has the Dilbert endorsement: http://blog.dilbert.com/post/1515525...nson-this-week
Yeah, if only we had another candidate talking complete nonsense about foreign policy.
Hope is the denial of reality
Blech. More of the same. Hillary was less disciplined and on-message, probably because of the format. Trump did his usual rambling with no connection to the questions or policy proposals, but at least he managed to sidestep some of the biggest problems facing him. I thought his rather hilarious response to the Islamophobia question was the highlight, though. Talk about missing the point.
Moderators had a bit more backbone this time, though at one point Trump was actually debating a moderator rather than Clinton.
"When I meet God, I am going to ask him two questions: Why relativity? And why turbulence? I really believe he will have an answer for the first." - Werner Heisenberg (maybe)
Because America is incapable of dealing with 2 issues at once.
Hope is the denial of reality
Yeah, if you think all Americans are protected by the Constitution, you know who to vote for.
Hope is the denial of reality
Yeah, nothing there about equal protection of American citizens (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal_Protection_Clause). For someone who pretends to like the Constitution, you're not a fan of the things actually written in it.
The fact that you don't think it's a problem to have fellow Americans discriminated against on the basis of their religious beliefs is pretty telling.
Hope is the denial of reality
How about actually answering the question being asked instead of telling all Muslim-Americans that their rights are dependent on them informing on other Muslims? Something that is not only false but clearly unconstitutional. With which you don't seem to have a problem.
Incidentally, laws are frequently enforced at the local level, and you have some pretty big Islamophobes in charge of some cities in Texas.
Hope is the denial of reality
I'm not seeing where he said their rights were dependent on it. He's saying it needed to happen, and hadn't happen in the past. Off the topic of the question? Absolutely however he (nor Clinton) is there to simply answer the questions they are asked. They are presenting their platform to the American people, they almost always touch on the question and then go into canned pre-prepared scripts. Donald just made it clear what he thinks a greater focus is and frankly I doubt it will cost him any votes.
The big lines people will be talking about where Hillary's quote from Obama, Trumps spat with the moderators, The video on Trump and Trumps "You'd be in jail." I think the Bill Clinton assault track won't get much traction and Syria won't get much play at all despite him throwing Pence under the bus.
You know, I was willing to forgive the Aleppo gaffe. I explained on here why I understood how that happened and while it was regrettable, I didn't think it REALLY said anything bad about Johnson as a candidate. But when he couldn't come up with the name of a single foreign leader when asked who he admired/respected. . . I mean it's not like you have to be honest with a question like that and as a statesman (or someone seeking to be one) you probably shouldn't be, it's an opportunity for a slap on the back for someone you'd end up trying to work with later which doesn't cost you a think. And he came across (indeed, pretty much admitted outright by saying he was having an Aleppo moment) as not merely not respecting any but just not knowing a single foreign leader's name (or maybe only knowing names he was hopefully aware that he really shouldn't say, like Putin). And really, any decent news source has an international section, he can't take five minutes in the morning to at least glance at the headlines?
Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"
You know, I was willing to forgive the Aleppo gaffe. I explained on here why I understood how that happened and while it was regrettable, I didn't think it REALLY said anything bad about Johnson as a candidate. But when he couldn't come up with the name of a single foreign leader when asked who he admired/respected. . . I mean it's not like you have to be honest with a question like that and as a statesman (or someone seeking to be one) you probably shouldn't be, it's an opportunity for a slap on the back for someone you'd end up trying to work with later which doesn't cost you a think. And he came across (indeed, pretty much admitted outright by saying he was having an Aleppo moment) as not merely not respecting any but just not knowing a single foreign leader's name (or maybe only knowing names he was hopefully aware that he really shouldn't say, like Putin). And really, any decent news source has an international section, he can't take five minutes in the morning to at least glance at the headlines?
Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"
Plus the guy was a freaking governor. You'd think he'd take it upon himself to be at least slightly informed about the world.
Hope is the denial of reality
Ken Bone won the debate, hope this helps
In the future, the Berlin wall will be a mile high, and made of steel. You too will be made to crawl, to lick children's blood from jackboots. There will be no creativity, only productivity. Instead of love there will be fear and distrust, instead of surrender there will be submission. Contact will be replaced with isolation, and joy with shame. Hope will cease to exist as a concept. The Earth will be covered with steel and concrete. There will be an electronic policeman in every head. Your children will be born in chains, live only to serve, and die in anguish and ignorance.
The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference.
Hope is the denial of reality
Except for Vicente Fox, apparently.
Hope is the denial of reality
Just to be snarky, was this question ever asked of Clinton (Russia reset) or Trump (Oh look , Putin too...)
Brevior saltare cum deformibus viris est vita
I'm biased, but I have two theories on this.
The first is this was somewhat deliberate, some level of trolling based on the liberterian ideology of nonintervention. It's not for nothing that Johnson posted on Twitter the next day "It's been almost 24 hours...and I still can't come up with a foreign leader I look up to." [LINK] That said, Johnson is an almost painfully straightforward person, so I sort of doubt it.
The second is Johnson, being a painfully straightforward guy, may have thought the best way to answer the question was to name a foreign leader with whom he had had real interactions. Johnson's actual answer was former Mexican President Vincente Fox, but he openly blanked on the name. It's reasonable to imagine Johnson had interactions with Fox, right?
I realize I'm being highly charitable. But candidly I've never been much for the media asking trivia questions about foreign leaders. Happened in 2000 with Bush and it was equally useless.