Recent Forum Topics › Forums › The Public House › Debate comments?
- This topic has 27 replies, 8 voices, and was last updated 8 years, 1 month ago by
wv.
-
AuthorPosts
-
September 27, 2016 at 8:31 am #53974
NewMexicoRamParticipantI watched the Mickey and Minnie Mouse show last night.
I think Hillary just won the election. And I’m as anti-Hillary as they come. It was raucous through most of the evening, but when The Donald started his rant about stamina and fortitude, I think it brought the debate to a new low.
But again, Wikileaks isn’t done yet.
September 27, 2016 at 8:45 am #53977NewMexicoRamParticipantIt wasn’t “fortitude”, but was “temperment.” Sorry.
September 27, 2016 at 8:51 am #53978
Billy_TParticipantI watched the Mickey and Minnie Mouse show last night.
I think Hillary just won the election. And I’m as anti-Hillary as they come. It was raucous through most of the evening, but when The Donald started his rant about stamina and fortitude, I think it brought the debate to a new low.
But again, Wikileaks isn’t done yet.
Hey, NMR, hope all is well.
I just now commented about it in the earlier, pre-debate thread.
Interesting point about Wikileaks. One thing a lot of his fans never will cop to: Trump is being helped tremendously by outside forces — likely Putin — who really, really want him to win. Trump’s egged them on to do more hacking as well. Assange and company have lost a ton of credibility by NOT going after the RNC — at all — and before that, corporate America. The real powers behind the throne, they seem to leave untouched. I’m no expert on Wikileaks, by any means, and probably need to take a much closer look at their history . . . but, right now, it seems they’re decidedly in the tank for Republicans and Trump. There have been no leaks of RNC communications, and, again, corporate America have been entirely left off the hook.
Sunshine is needed, and it’s beautiful. But it should shine on all of them, not just the Dems.
September 27, 2016 at 10:51 am #53979Billy_TParticipantFor anyone interested, this is a pretty good fact-check on the debate:
And for those worried about “liberal bias”, Kessler leans center-right.
September 27, 2016 at 10:54 am #53980
bnwBlockedSame ole Candy Crawley moderator but in drag and black face last night. Argues against Trump about success of stop and frisk in NY, questions repeatedly about Trump minutia while never asking Hildabeast about Email scandal, Benghazi or the Clinton Foundation pay to play.
The upside to being a Rams fan is heartbreak.
Sprinkles are for winners.
September 27, 2016 at 10:59 am #53981bnwBlockedI watched the Mickey and Minnie Mouse show last night.
I think Hillary just won the election. And I’m as anti-Hillary as they come. It was raucous through most of the evening, but when The Donald started his rant about stamina and fortitude, I think it brought the debate to a new low.
But again, Wikileaks isn’t done yet.
Hey, NMR, hope all is well.
I just now commented about it in the earlier, pre-debate thread.
Interesting point about Wikileaks. One thing a lot of his fans never will cop to: Trump is being helped tremendously by outside forces — likely Putin — who really, really want him to win. Trump’s egged them on to do more hacking as well. Assange and company have lost a ton of credibility by NOT going after the RNC — at all — and before that, corporate America. The real powers behind the throne, they seem to leave untouched. I’m no expert on Wikileaks, by any means, and probably need to take a much closer look at their history . . . but, right now, it seems they’re decidedly in the tank for Republicans and Trump. There have been no leaks of RNC communications, and, again, corporate America have been entirely left off the hook.
Sunshine is needed, and it’s beautiful. But it should shine on all of them, not just the Dems.
I disagree about Wikileaks. Assange said he would release the documents before the debate and to expect it to be big. You only announce an impending release if you want to make it known that a deal can be made to not release. I suspect Assange got his deal and that deal wouldn’t benefit Trump.
The upside to being a Rams fan is heartbreak.
Sprinkles are for winners.
September 27, 2016 at 11:08 am #53982Billy_TParticipantSame ole Candy Crawley moderator but in drag and black face last night. Argues against Trump about success of stop and frisk in NY, questions repeatedly about Trump minutia while never asking Hildabeast about Email scandal, Benghazi or the Clinton Foundation pay to play.
Stop and frisk was ruled unconstitutional, and there is absolutely no evidence that it worked.
Holt, by the way, contrary to Trump’s claim, is a registered Republican.
There is no email scandal. It was always a nothingburger, trumped up by the GOP. If she hadn’t been running for the presidency, the GOP wouldn’t have bothered. Same with Benghazi, another phony “scandal.” Umpteen, endless hearings on both failed to produce any evidence of wrong-doing.
As mentioned before, the GOP forever makes shit up and avoids going after the Dems on legit issues, because they’re fully complicit in them. There is a TON to attack, but they can’t. Because it would implicate them too. So they have to manufacture bogus nonsense.
And today, the little baby Trump is trying to claim there was something wrong with his mic, and that this was done on purpose — even though for those of us listening and watching at home, both mics sounded the same. He never stops whining, being a spoiled, boorish child and bully, lying endlessly and showing his supreme ignorance.
He lost, fair and square.
September 27, 2016 at 11:19 am #53983Billy_TParticipantI disagree about Wikileaks. Assange said he would release the documents before the debate and to expect it to be big. You only announce an impending release if you want to make it known that a deal can be made to not release. I suspect Assange got his deal and that deal wouldn’t benefit Trump.
Are you saying the total absence of evidence to support this conjecture is evidence that it happened?
Given the fact that Assange has leaked nothing whatsoever about Republicans, and tons of damaging info on the Dems, why do you think your speculation makes any sense?
The lopsided nature of the leaks is unprecedented. It’s ONLY against the Dems.
I want the sunshine to pour in, on all centers of power. All of them. Transparency to the max. But that’s not what is happening here. As mentioned, Wikileaks has avoided exposing private sector malfeasance, and the GOP. It’s as if Trump and the Republican Party were paying him directly. I don’t think that’s the case. But if anyone is doing the paying, it’s Trump and the GOP, not Clinton and the Dems. Just look at the actual results.
September 27, 2016 at 11:23 am #53984bnwBlockedSame ole Candy Crawley moderator but in drag and black face last night. Argues against Trump about success of stop and frisk in NY, questions repeatedly about Trump minutia while never asking Hildabeast about Email scandal, Benghazi or the Clinton Foundation pay to play.
Stop and frisk was ruled unconstitutional, and there is absolutely no evidence that it worked.
Holt, by the way, contrary to Trump’s claim, is a registered Republican.
There is no email scandal. It was always a nothingburger, trumped up by the GOP. If she hadn’t been running for the presidency, the GOP wouldn’t have bothered. Same with Benghazi, another phony “scandal.” Umpteen, endless hearings on both failed to produce any evidence of wrong-doing.
As mentioned before, the GOP forever makes shit up and avoids going after the Dems on legit issues, because they’re fully complicit in them. There is a TON to attack, but they can’t. Because it would implicate them too. So they have to manufacture bogus nonsense.
And today, the little baby Trump is trying to claim there was something wrong with his mic, and that this was done on purpose — even though for those of us listening and watching at home, both mics sounded the same. He never stops whining, being a spoiled, boorish child and bully, lying endlessly and showing his supreme ignorance.
He lost, fair and square.
Stop and Frisk worked great. Trump won the ‘debate’.
The upside to being a Rams fan is heartbreak.
Sprinkles are for winners.
September 27, 2016 at 11:29 am #53985bnwBlockedI disagree about Wikileaks. Assange said he would release the documents before the debate and to expect it to be big. You only announce an impending release if you want to make it known that a deal can be made to not release. I suspect Assange got his deal and that deal wouldn’t benefit Trump.
Are you saying the total absence of evidence to support this conjecture is evidence that it happened?
Given the fact that Assange has leaked nothing whatsoever about Republicans, and tons of damaging info on the Dems, why do you think your speculation makes any sense?
The lopsided nature of the leaks is unprecedented. It’s ONLY against the Dems.
I want the sunshine to pour in, on all centers of power. All of them. Transparency to the max. But that’s not what is happening here. As mentioned, Wikileaks has avoided exposing private sector malfeasance, and the GOP. It’s as if Trump and the Republican Party were paying him directly. I don’t think that’s the case. But if anyone is doing the paying, it’s Trump and the GOP, not Clinton and the Dems. Just look at the actual results.
The documents came from the DNC staffer who died shortly after leaking the documents. Therefore the documents could only be damaging to Democrats and Hildabeast. For Assange to not release what he claimed he would and when tells me he got his deal. Most likey a combination of legal immunity and cash.
-
This reply was modified 8 years, 1 month ago by bnw.
The upside to being a Rams fan is heartbreak.
Sprinkles are for winners.
September 27, 2016 at 11:33 am #53987Billy_TParticipantSame ole Candy Crawley moderator but in drag and black face last night. Argues against Trump about success of stop and frisk in NY, questions repeatedly about Trump minutia while never asking Hildabeast about Email scandal, Benghazi or the Clinton Foundation pay to play.
Stop and frisk was ruled unconstitutional, and there is absolutely no evidence that it worked.
Holt, by the way, contrary to Trump’s claim, is a registered Republican.
There is no email scandal. It was always a nothingburger, trumped up by the GOP. If she hadn’t been running for the presidency, the GOP wouldn’t have bothered. Same with Benghazi, another phony “scandal.” Umpteen, endless hearings on both failed to produce any evidence of wrong-doing.
As mentioned before, the GOP forever makes shit up and avoids going after the Dems on legit issues, because they’re fully complicit in them. There is a TON to attack, but they can’t. Because it would implicate them too. So they have to manufacture bogus nonsense.
And today, the little baby Trump is trying to claim there was something wrong with his mic, and that this was done on purpose — even though for those of us listening and watching at home, both mics sounded the same. He never stops whining, being a spoiled, boorish child and bully, lying endlessly and showing his supreme ignorance.
He lost, fair and square.
Stop and Frisk worked great. Trump won the ‘debate’.
Again, there is no evidence that it worked at all. None. And it was ruled unconstitutional, regardless. I thought the Constitution was important to you.
No one outside the Trump camp thinks he won. It’s just a matter of the range of Clinton’s debate victory. I can’t stand either candidate. But she stomped him. It wasn’t close.
September 27, 2016 at 11:39 am #53988Billy_TParticipantI disagree about Wikileaks. Assange said he would release the documents before the debate and to expect it to be big. You only announce an impending release if you want to make it known that a deal can be made to not release. I suspect Assange got his deal and that deal wouldn’t benefit Trump.
Are you saying the total absence of evidence to support this conjecture is evidence that it happened?
Given the fact that Assange has leaked nothing whatsoever about Republicans, and tons of damaging info on the Dems, why do you think your speculation makes any sense?
The lopsided nature of the leaks is unprecedented. It’s ONLY against the Dems.
I want the sunshine to pour in, on all centers of power. All of them. Transparency to the max. But that’s not what is happening here. As mentioned, Wikileaks has avoided exposing private sector malfeasance, and the GOP. It’s as if Trump and the Republican Party were paying him directly. I don’t think that’s the case. But if anyone is doing the paying, it’s Trump and the GOP, not Clinton and the Dems. Just look at the actual results.
The documents came from the DNC staffer who died shortly after leaking the documents. Therefore the documents could only be damaging to Democrats and Hildabeast. For Assange to not release what he claimed he would and when tells me he got his deal. Most likey a combination of legal immunity and cash.
There is no evidence that the leaks came from a DNC staffer, much less that he or she died after doing so. None. That’s yet one more right-wing fever-swamp conspiracy theory. And, as far as we know, our intel agencies believe that Russia is likely behind the hacks.
September 27, 2016 at 11:42 am #53989Billy_TParticipantGuccifer2.0 is the likely hacker and source:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guccifer_2.0
“Guccifer 2.0” is a hacker (or hackers) who hacked into the Democratic National Committee computer network and then leaked its documents to the newspaper The Hill,[1][2] the anti-secrecy website WikiLeaks,[3][4][5][6][7][8][9] and a conference event.[10]
WikiLeaks has not revealed its source. However, some cybersecurity experts and firms have speculated, including CrowdStrike, Fidelis Cybersecurity, Mandiant, SecureWorks, ThreatConnect, and the editor for Ars Technica,[11] that the leak was part of a series of cyberattacks on the DNC committed by two Russian intelligence groups.[12][13][14][15][16] U.S. intelligence agencies agree, concluding with “high confidence” that the Russian government was behind the theft of emails and documents from the DNC.[11] The Russian government said it had no involvement in the theft.[17] Wikileaks founder Julian Assange said that there was no proof that Russia was behind the attack.[18]
Various cybersecurity experts have stated that “Guccifer 2.0” is likely a creation of the Russian state-sponsored hacking groups thought to have executed the attack, invented to coverup Russian responsibility.[19][20] The cybersecurity firm Crowdstrike, which analyzed the data breach, “posits that Guccifer 2.0 could be ‘part of a Russian Intelligence disinformation campaign'”—i.e., a creation to deflect blame for the theft.[19] Russia has made use of the invention of “a lone hacker or an hacktivist to deflect blame” in the past, deploying this strategy in previous cyberattacks on the German government and the French network TV5Monde.[20] Thomas Rid of King’s College London, a cybersecurity expert, states that it is “‘more likely than not’ that the whole operation, including the Guccifer 2.0 part, was orchestrated by Russian spies,” and others concur.[20]
September 27, 2016 at 11:48 am #53990bnwBlockedAssange hints the DNC leak came from DNC staffer Seth Rich who was murdered.
The upside to being a Rams fan is heartbreak.
Sprinkles are for winners.
September 27, 2016 at 11:48 am #53991Billy_TParticipantOf course, when it comes to government secrets, spying, counter-spying, it’s difficult to be sure of anything. It may well have come from a disaffected DNC worker. But there is no evidence to support that yet.
The problem with the right is, it’s just never cared about such inconveniences. Like the total absence of evidence.
Implicitly, if not explicitly, its motto is, “Facts? Who the hell needs facts? We appeal to fear and paranoia, which always works best in political matters.”
September 27, 2016 at 12:12 pm #53993wvParticipantI watched the Mickey and Minnie Mouse show last night.
I think Hillary just won the election. And I’m as anti-Hillary as they come. It was raucous through most of the evening, but when The Donald started his rant about stamina and fortitude, I think it brought the debate to a new low.
But again, Wikileaks isn’t done yet.
—————
I didn’t watch it. I watched a very weird movie called “Lobster”
instead.It’ll be interesting to see if the polls change any now that there’s
been a ‘debate’.w
vSeptember 27, 2016 at 12:22 pm #53995Billy_TParticipantI watched the Mickey and Minnie Mouse show last night.
I think Hillary just won the election. And I’m as anti-Hillary as they come. It was raucous through most of the evening, but when The Donald started his rant about stamina and fortitude, I think it brought the debate to a new low.
But again, Wikileaks isn’t done yet.
—————
I didn’t watch it. I watched a very weird movie called “Lobster”
instead.It’ll be interesting to see if the polls change any now that there’s
been a ‘debate’.w
vI’ve got that in my Netflix queue. Wanted to see it when it came out, but missed the chance.
Did you like it?
September 27, 2016 at 12:32 pm #53997
joemadParticipantSame ole Candy Crawley moderator but in drag and black face last night. Argues against Trump about success of stop and frisk in NY, questions repeatedly about Trump minutia while never asking Hildabeast about Email scandal, Benghazi or the Clinton Foundation pay to play.
I think Lester was a little too kind to Donna Trump.
Next moderator needs a taser and keep Donna’s mouth shut the next time Orange Julius..err I mean Orange Julie interrupts a rebuttal.
This ain’t twitter Donna, it’s a debate……..and sometimes you need to shut the fuck up……
September 27, 2016 at 12:43 pm #53998Billy_TParticipantSame ole Candy Crawley moderator but in drag and black face last night. Argues against Trump about success of stop and frisk in NY, questions repeatedly about Trump minutia while never asking Hildabeast about Email scandal, Benghazi or the Clinton Foundation pay to play.
I think Lester was a little too kind to Donna Trump.
Next moderator needs a taser and keep Donna’s mouth shut the next time Orange Julius..err I mean Orange Julie interrupts a rebuttal.
This ain’t twitter Donna, it’s a debate……..and sometimes you need to shut the fuck up……
Agreed. Holt let Trump bully him. He needed to take control and talk over the bully, cut his mic if needbe. Trump spoke over Clinton and Holt, interrupting both of them repeatedly. To me, anyone who thinks Holt helped Clinton wasn’t watching this debate. They were tuned into post-debate spin rooms.
Speaking of those. Trump bragged that he won the CBS post-debate poll. Trouble is, Major Garrett posted on twitter that they didn’t have one.
Major Garrett Verified account
@MajorCBSOn @foxandfriends @realDonaldTrump said he won a @CBSNews post-debate poll. We did not conduct a post-debate poll.
Trump has a very bad habit of lying about things that are easily fact-checked. Like meeting with top police officials in Chicago, who later said that never happened. Like that supposed letter from the NFL concerning debate times that also never happened.
And now he’s complaining about his mic, suggesting there was a conspiracy to make him sound bad.
He’s such a little baby.
September 27, 2016 at 12:51 pm #53999
PA RamParticipantI didn’t watch it. I watched a very weird movie called “Lobster”
instead.It’ll be interesting to see if the polls change any now that there’s
been a ‘debate’.w
vI saw that film. It has gotten great reviews by the way. While it had some interesting elements to it I thought that it failed as a good film. Part of the problem was that it fell into a sort of black “dramady” territory. Black comedy? Okay. Dark drama? Okay. Mixing the two? Not so much.
I thought that the actors nailed the tone of the film. But the film itself, in trying to be so different, failed to be good.
"Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away. " Philip K. Dick
September 27, 2016 at 2:19 pm #54002joemadParticipantNPR debate Fact check…
Donna… I am not sure that you or your base understands what a fact actually is………
this is a pretty good link, easy to follow summary on the BS that was spun last night….
fact check: URL = http://www.npr.org/2016/09/26/495115346/fact-check-first-presidential-debate
September 27, 2016 at 3:51 pm #54004wvParticipantI’ve got that in my Netflix queue. Wanted to see it when it came out, but missed the chance.
Did you like it?
————-
Well, its the quirkiest movie I’ve seen all year. Its one of them ‘artsy avant-garde’ type things.
The director talked about wanting to make a movie about various aspects of human ‘love’ and all the societal pressures that interact with and on ‘love.’
Thing is, i just didn’t see much in the film that was particularly ‘insightful.’ Seemed like it had a lot of cliches to me. I kinda lost interest in it, about two-thirds of the way into it.
It was better than watching Corporate-Clinton, Corporate-Trump and the Corporate-Media, though.
w
v
this guy liked it
and
September 27, 2016 at 9:27 pm #54014bnwBlockedThe reviewer lost me at the 26 second mark with his comment of “pretentious dribble”.
The upside to being a Rams fan is heartbreak.
Sprinkles are for winners.
September 28, 2016 at 9:07 am #54032Billy_TParticipantThanks, WV.
I like quirky, avant-garde movies. Synecdoche, New York was a fairly recent film along those lines, and really good. Charlie Kaufman does a lot of those.
Also really liked two films by Jean-Pierre Jeunet, both starring the wonderful Audrey Tautoo: Amélie (2001), which I’m guessing you’ve already seen . . . and the (to me) even better A Very Long Engagement (2004).
Just a few off the top of my head.
Btw, Léa Seydoux, from The Lobster, was in one of my favorite movies of all time: Blue is the Warmest Color. Depending on one’s place of work, it may be NSFW to pull that one up on your computer screen.
September 28, 2016 at 2:45 pm #54043September 28, 2016 at 7:12 pm #54051wvParticipantSeptember 29, 2016 at 2:43 am #54088
Eternal RamnationParticipantI am proud to say I did not watch the shit show. Calling it a debate is ridiculous. It is a corporate production. Trump is a teapublican Clinton a pro-choice neocon endorsed by the likes of GHWBush. The only hope for intelligent debate was escorted off campus by armed corporate guard. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Po4NAoHp1bw
September 29, 2016 at 7:49 am #54090wvParticipantI am proud to say I did not watch the shit show. Calling it a debate is ridiculous. It is a corporate production. Trump is a teapublican Clinton a pro-choice neocon endorsed by the likes of GHWBush. The only hope for intelligent debate was escorted off campus by armed corporate guard. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Po4NAoHp1bw
————-
…believe it or not, I ‘was’ actually interested in what they would wear. I wondered what color tie, corporate-donald would wear and what colors Hillary would wear, etc.
I’m always mildly interested in what the powers-that-be think about colors and textures and styles and how they influence people’s perceptions, etc. I’m interested in all aspects of the evil-arts –ie, the art of ‘selling/persuading’.
How Hillary Clinton Softened Her Style to Win Votes
……..
….
…Ms. Clinton is rumored to have hired makeup artist Barbara Lacy from HBO’s VEEP to head her beauty team. And reportedly, she is still a client of her longtime hair stylist Isabelle Goetz. (Neither returned requests for comment.) Ms. Goetz’s work has been particularly apparent of late. Ms. Clinton’s harsh, salt and pepper streaks of the winter have been replaced by warm, buttery caramels and golden highlights, a common hairdresser’s tactic for “softening up” a woman’s appearance. Ashy, white and mousey tones are considered to be harsh and aging. But arguably the most important addition to Ms. Clinton’s team is Kristina Schake. A former aide to Michelle Obama, Ms. Schake uses style, body language and other PR tactics to shape Ms. Clinton’s public persona and make her more relatable.Ms. Clinton’s recent appearances indicate that these tactics of business-like, streamlined outfits and softer beauty are working. According to professor Andy J. Yap, of INSEAD’s Organisational Behavior Area, Ms. Clinton’s body language at the June rally revealed a more relatable side. “She smiled a lot more with her eyes. Psychologists call this a Duchenne smile (or a genuine smile), which involves smiling with both the zygomatic major muscle (mouth) and the orbicularis oculi muscle (crow’s feet around the eyes),” he told the Observer. “This, coupled with her usual confident demeanor—both from her dressing and posture—makes her appear warm and competent.”
-
This reply was modified 8 years, 1 month ago by
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
