1st Presidential Debate (2016) thread

  • News
  • Thread starter collinsmark
  • Start date
  • #26
22,089
3,286
We have to deal with the hand we've been dealt
Yep, this accurately describes the problem with American politics. You can have two awful insane candidates and you'll still vote for one of them.
 
  • Like
Likes mheslep, jim hardy, CalcNerd and 1 other person
  • #27
3,379
944
There are third party choices in some states, but those don't seem very sane either.
There is an anti-science candidate and a borderline anarchist available.
 
  • #28
22,089
3,286
There are third party choices in some states,
Irrelevant. Media ignores them anyway. And if any good third party rises and gets enough votes, then it means that no candidate scores more than 50% of the electoral college, then the House of Representatives chooses the president. What a crazy system, it encourages a two party system very heavily.
 
  • Like
Likes mheslep and CalcNerd
  • #29
olivermsun
Science Advisor
1,244
118
Or you guys can quit this silly notion of a two party system...
There are pros and cons. On the pro side we only have to judge relative craziness along a continuum of two.
 
  • #30
22,089
3,286
There are pros and cons. On the pro side we only have to judge relative craziness along a continuum of two.
Yeah, if that's your main measure of this election (and it is!), then that shows the problem quite accurately.
 
  • #31
olivermsun
Science Advisor
1,244
118
Yeah, if that's your main measure of this election (and it is!), then that shows the problem quite accurately.
I think you're missing the point. With multiple parties there are more choices along the crazy continuum, that doesn't mean any of them aren't crazy.

Is there some country that you would hold up as a particularly good example of sanity?
 
  • #32
3,379
944
"Of course I'm mad, we're all mad"
(Dark side of the moon)
 
  • #33
russ_watters
Mentor
19,869
6,293
Is the president's job to "inspire"...?
No, it's a candidate's job to inspire.
 
  • #34
russ_watters
Mentor
19,869
6,293
Or you guys can quit this silly notion of a two party system...
One thing that helps perpetuate it is the commission for debates:
http://www.debates.org/index.php?page=overview

By rule, a candidate must have 15% of the vote in an average poll in order to be included. 10% may not seem like much, but in a 3-horse race where 20% say "undecided" it is pretty big. If a 3rd party candidate were allowed in, that would raise their stature and swing votes in their direction. Naturally, the creators of the debate commission -- the two main parties -- would like to avoid that, and designed the rules to their favor.
Irrelevant. Media ignores them anyway. And if any good third party rises and gets enough votes, then it means that no candidate scores more than 50% of the electoral college, then the House of Representatives chooses the president.
That would be more difficult than it seems. Most states choose electors by a winner-take-all plurality, so it would take a very even 3-party race to have an election go to the House. Any combination of 2 candidates significantly ahead of a third nationally results in the 3rd candidate getting zero electors. See Ross Perot in 1992 when he got 19% of the popular vote and zero electors.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_1992
 
  • #35
russ_watters
Mentor
19,869
6,293
There are third party choices in some states....
Gary Johnson is on the ballot in *every* state.
 
  • #36
3,379
944
"In Johnson’s America, corporations will be completely in charge of the environment, health care, retirement, trade and wages,"
That's what I meant by borderline anarchist.
( or did I mean communist:?)
 
  • #37
russ_watters
Mentor
19,869
6,293
"In Johnson’s America, corporations will be completely in charge of the environment, health care, retirement, trade and wages,"
That's what I meant by borderline anarchist.
Do you have any sources for that? Because his website doesn't say that. Just picking the first one:
We need to stand firm to protect our environment for our future generations, especially those designated areas of protection like our National Parks. Consistent with that responsibility, the proper role of government is to enforce reasonable environmental protections. Governor Johnson did that as Governor, and would do so as President.

Governor Johnson believes the Environmental Protection Agency, when focused on its true mission, plays an important role in keeping the environment and citizens safe.

Johnson does not, however, believe the government should be engaging in social and economic engineering for the purpose of creating winners and losers in what should be a robust free market. Preventing a polluter from harming our water or air is one thing. Having politicians in Washington, D.C., acting on behalf of high powered lobbyists, determine the future of clean energy innovation is another.
https://www.johnsonweld.com/environment

I think that's very well put.

It is also important to note that if someone like Johnson were elected President he wouldn't have representation in Congress. Without a President to be strongly for or against, there is the possibility that Congress could actually work with the President and get some reasonable/useful things done. Imagine if liberals got their social freedoms and conservatives got the fiscal responsibility they want? I tend to be of the belief that the two parties stake-out opposing positions on some issues just for the sake of having opposing positions.
 
  • #38
olivermsun
Science Advisor
1,244
118
No, it's a candidate's job to inspire.
IMHO it's the candidate's job to convince me that they can and will do the job required. Inspiration is preferred but optional.
 
  • #39
russ_watters
Mentor
19,869
6,293
IMHO it's the candidate's job to convince me that they can and will do the job. Inspiration is preferred but optional.
Not to quibble over definitions, but there are two ways to take the word "inspire" and "convince me that they can and will do the job" fits one of them (inspire confidence in their ability). However, the other way to read "inspire" is what most people react to and I realize that's what your point was. I personally fall more toward your end of the spectrum, but politicians and marketteers known they can't reach people like you and me, so they don't really try. When you are looking for content with substance, 99% of what you seen in a campaign is irrelevant noise.
 
  • Like
Likes olivermsun
  • #40
87
568
Where can I watch it online? I want to have fun, your comments persuaded me it's something worth watching! I tried to ggogle it and nothing came out, then I tried YT and found several videos which were only live streams that don't work anymore.
 
  • #41
DrClaude
Mentor
7,433
3,703
Where can I watch it online? I want to have fun, your comments persuaded me it's something worth watching! I tried to ggogle it and nothing came out, then I tried YT and found several videos which were only live streams that don't work anymore.
Try this:
 
  • Like
Likes Sophia
  • #42
PeroK
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
Insights Author
Gold Member
14,750
6,995
"Of course I'm mad, we're all mad"
(Dark side of the moon)
I think it's:

"I've always been mad, I know I've been mad, like the most of us are. It's very hard to explain why you're mad, even if you're not mad."
 
  • #43
gfd43tg
Gold Member
953
49
I'm glad the moderator was able to bring up the issues that are most important in the hearts and minds of Americans, like the birther issue.
 
  • Like
Likes mheslep
  • #44
Borg
Science Advisor
Gold Member
1,885
2,380
Try this:
I was going to look this up since I wasn't up while it was on. I'm listening to it now. BTW, this is the first debate I've ever listened to.
 
  • #45
JohnDillinger2
Where does the moderator Lester Holt get the idea he can "correct" Trump about his position on going into the Iraq War? Somehow Trump going on the Howard Stern Show (keep in mind this is a comedy show with shock jock insanity including prank calls and strippers) and saying "maybe" he would go into Iraq is somehow legally binding? Hillary Clinton was in a position of power and used it to get us into Iraq with her terrible decision to vote yes. Anyone who tries to avoid the idea that Clinton is a warhawk is really drinking the establishment media kool-aid.
 
  • Like
Likes mheslep, jim hardy and gfd43tg
  • #47
tionis
Gold Member
458
67
Trump was funny for like the first 20 minutes and then sort of got lost and kept repeating himself. He had Hillary laughing like a smooth operator would haha. I don't think he knows how the world really works, tho I'm sure you don't really need to, that is why you have a cabinet and all that. Hillary did well too, but she looked like chairman Mao. She is in desperate need of some sartorial advice. She is obviously more experienced and less likely to rock the establishment boat. I think they secretly like each other and have the same opinion of the unwashed masses lol.
 
  • #48
jim hardy
Science Advisor
Gold Member
2019 Award
Dearly Missed
9,839
4,879
This election is serious for two reasons.

It determines what kind of people will be appointed to supreme court, probably two or three of them.
It determines whether we continue pushing NATO right up to Russia's border, which Reagan and Bush Sr promised them we wouldn't do.

A good sailor judges a helmsman by looking at his ship's wake.
 
  • #49
Evo
Mentor
23,155
2,804
Where does the moderator Lester Holt get the idea he can "correct" Trump about his position on going into the Iraq War? Somehow Trump going on the Howard Stern Show (keep in mind this is a comedy show with shock jock insanity including prank calls and strippers) and saying "maybe" he would go into Iraq is somehow legally binding? Hillary Clinton was in a position of power and used it to get us into Iraq with her terrible decision to vote yes. Anyone who tries to avoid the idea that Clinton is a warhawk is really drinking the establishment media kool-aid.
Let's set the story straight on that again.

Hillary Clinton Told the Truth About Her Iraq War Vote

Her foreign policy judgment can’t be understood without that context.

The evidence is clear. On Oct. 10, 2002, during the Senate debate on a resolution to authorize the use of force in Iraq, Clinton rose to express her highly qualified support. First, though, she criticized the idea of attacking Saddam then and there, either alone or “with any allies we can muster.” Such a course, she said, “is fraught with danger,” in part because “it would set a precedent that could come back to haunt us,” legitimizing invasions that Russia might launch against Georgia, India against Pakistan, or China against Taiwan.

“So,” she continued, “the question is, how do we do our best to both diffuse the threat Saddam Hussein poses to his people, the region, including Israel, and the United States—and, at the same time, work to maximize our international support and strengthen the United Nations.”

She went on to say that there was “no perfect approach to this thorny dilemma” and that “people of good faith and high intelligence can reach diametrically opposing conclusions.” But, she concluded, “I believe the best course is to go to the United Nations for a strong resolution” that calls “for complete, unlimited inspections with cooperation expected and demanded” from Saddam.

“If we get the resolution the president seeks, and Saddam complies,” Clinton added, “disarmament can proceed and the threat can be eliminated. … If we get the resolution and Saddam does not comply, we can attack him with far more support and legitimacy than we would have otherwise.” This international support is “crucial,” she added, because, “after shots are fired and bombs are dropped, not all consequences are predictable.”

Then came, from today’s vantage, the key passage: “Even though the resolution before the Senate is not as strong as I would like in requiring the diplomatic route first … I take the president at his word that he will try hard to pass a United Nations resolution and seek to avoid war, if possible. Because bipartisan support for this resolution makes success in the United Nations more likely and war less likely—and because a good faith effort by the United States, even if it fails, will bring more allies and legitimacy to our cause—I have concluded, after careful and serious consideration, that a vote for the resolution best serves the security of our nation. If we were to defeat this resolution or pass it with only a few Democrats, I am concerned that those who want to pretend this problem will go away with delay will oppose any United Nations resolution calling for unrestricted inspections.”

She added, “This is a difficult vote. This is probably the hardest decision I have ever had to make. Any vote that may lead to war should be hard, but I cast it with conviction. … My vote is not, however, a vote for any new doctrine of preemption or for unilateralism or for the arrogance of American power or purpose.” A vote for the resolution, she argued, “is not a vote to rush to war; it is a vote that puts awesome responsibility in the hands of our president. And we say to him: Use these powers wisely and as a last resort.”
 
Last edited:
  • #50
Evo
Mentor
23,155
2,804

Related Threads on 1st Presidential Debate (2016) thread

  • Last Post
6
Replies
129
Views
10K
  • Poll
  • Last Post
7
Replies
164
Views
12K
  • Last Post
5
Replies
100
Views
7K
  • Last Post
4
Replies
75
Views
7K
Replies
5
Views
1K
Replies
133
Views
11K
Replies
54
Views
7K
Replies
1
Views
3K
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
6
Views
1K
Top