Trump vs hillary: debate live in 15

[stconquest]

2 minutes ago, Dan Castellaneta said:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ubp0CEbqW-U

so hillary brought up race determining the kind of education you get

and that's bullshit

it doesn't

 

how well you do determines it

Being poor/rich determines the kind of education you get... it is not bullshit.

 

That's fucked up.

[PlayStation 2]

Just now, stconquest said:

Being poor determines the kind of education you get... it is not bullshit.

It does, but being poor doesn't exactly connect to race.

[AlwaysFSX]

Clinton is giving me a headache..

[stconquest]

12 minutes ago, Dan Castellaneta said:

It does, but being poor doesn't exactly connect to race.

It does, statistically it does.  Sure there are black people that are well off or rich... but the poorest communities are more often than not, black and latino. 

 

The policing many parts in the USA, coupled with the for-profit penal system, has contributed to the disparaging minority communities. 

 

Minority communities have a propensity for criminal activity (desperation/lack of education/access to guns).  The police know that these communities of poorer people cannot defend themselves in court and are often targeted for easy arrests and tickets/traffic stops... a lot of the time the people they harass are not criminals, or involved in any criminal activity at the time of arrest.  They can't do shit, no money.

[stconquest]

Clinton:  We need to intensify our airstrikes.

 

Ugh... people are tired of this shit.  You don't stop radicalization by limiting internet access, you do it with education and economic opportunity.  Why is she this dumb?

[Serin]

1 minute ago, stconquest said:

Clinton:  We need to intensify our airstrikes.

 

Ugh... people are tired of this shit.  You don't stop radicalization by limiting internet access, you do it with education and opportunity.  Why is she this dumb?

Proposing that the fight is in fact against an idea is really hard to sell. People like Maajid Nawaz have been talking about it for years and only now is the UK govt starting to listen.
Some(most) people prefer simple solutions for incredibly complex problems. Its fucking stupid - but its a political reality in nations where public education is shite.

[stconquest]

2 minutes ago, Serin said:

Proposing that the fight is in fact against an idea is really hard to sell. People like Maajid Nawaz have been talking about it for years and only now is the UK govt starting to listen.
Some(most) people prefer simple solutions for incredibly complex problems. Its fucking stupid - but its a political reality in nations where public education is shite.

I should have mentioned that limiting military intervention in foreign countries, including the military funding of countries like SA and Isreal, also helps stop domestic radicalization.  Killing innocent people (especially children) can easily anger people to a degree that they become radicalized.

[Serin]

2 minutes ago, stconquest said:

I should have mentioned that limiting military intervention in foreign countries, including the military funding of countries like SA and Isreal, also helps stop domestic radicalization.  Killing innocent people (especially children) can easily anger people to a degree that they become radicalized.

The issues of radicalisation are too complex to nail down to something that simplistic. Much like the issues of Israel and Palestine.
I suppose an interesting analogy is the 'bullshit asymmetry' - its really easy for one party to put on the table a simple explanation and solution, but it is much harder to then for the other party to refute that proposed simplicity.

[stconquest]

8 minutes ago, Serin said:

The issues of radicalisation are too complex to nail down to something that simplistic. Much like the issues of Israel and Palestine.
I suppose an interesting analogy is the 'bullshit asymmetry' - its really easy for one party to put on the table a simple explanation and solution, but it is much harder to then for the other party to refute that proposed simplicity.

I keep coming up with more.  Trying to to riddle the thread with posts. 

 

Simplicity is fine, IF the problem is understood entirely.  Simplicity fails when it is derived from a lack of understanding or complete fallacy. 

 

Yes. To refute an overly-simplified solution, you have to start from the point of error in the definition of the problem.  It's harder to explain to people than it should be.

[Tech_Dreamer]

presidential rap battles!

[GSTARR]

That question solely to trump about his comments on Hillary's looks was disgustingly biased against him. I was physically jolted towards the tv when those words were spoken. That sort of question that obviously points to one specific person being one specific sort of way (in this context, sexist) has no place in a presidential debate where both members are to be questioned.

Especially that specific tweet they quoted. Could have used 2 seconds worth of intuition to figure out that it wasn't sexist whatsoever. Whoever threw that question in there ought to slap themselves

[Speedyv]

1 hour ago, AresKrieger said:

Nope, I don't watch TV unless it's football, I'll just watch the hi lights to get the gist

Ignorance is bliss. Couldn't be more appropriate.

[MaxBunny]

That was fun to watch. Hillary didn't do too badly, but she was pretty canned with her pandering attempts. Trump won the night.

[TubsAlwaysWins]

Idk if anyone uses iFunny but all the features are about the debate

[suchamoneypit]

did anyone else find that last question so pointless. "If the opposing wins will you support the voters decision" (not exact words). Like what, are they supposed to say "no, I will not support the voters decision"?

 

I thought it was hilarious how much trump interrupted Hilary and Lester kept saying it wasn't his time to talk. I get they don't like each other but come on your grown adults at a debate have some restraint.

[stconquest]

16 minutes ago, MaxBunny said:

That was fun to watch. Hillary didn't do too badly, but she was pretty canned with her pandering attempts. Trump won the night.

Please explain why Trump won. 

[RGProductions]

They're all idiots IMO

[AresKrieger]

37 minutes ago, stconquest said:

you do it with education and economic opportunity. 

Well we actually don't know how to stop insurgency, in the past the best way to deal with a group that was causing issues was either eliminating the group or extreme propaganda, the former obviously wouldn't be tolerated as it would in the distant past and the latter seems to be waning in effectiveness. Also surprisingly more educated people than you would think have been extremists for some reason.

[No]

i dont like either of them

[stconquest]

7 minutes ago, AresKrieger said:

Well we actually don't know how to stop insurgency, in the past the best way to deal with a group that was causing issues was either eliminating the group or extreme propaganda, the former obviously wouldn't be tolerated as it would in the distant past and the latter seems to be waning in effectiveness. Also surprisingly more educated people than you would think have been extremists for some reason.

There is no credible threat of insurgency, in the US, by muslim terrorists.  Therefore eliminating them is not an option because you can't find them.... kinda.

 

Please see above.  The conversation is way past you.  @Serin hinted to what I was leaving out:  radicalization is not caused by one singular aspect... "lack of education".

 

Educated people are "radicalized" for a multitude of reasons.  It will always relate to the death of innocents by a state/group.

[AresKrieger]

6 minutes ago, stconquest said:

There is no credible threat of insurgency, in the US, by muslim terrorists.  Therefore eliminating them is not an option because you can't find them.... kinda.

Though this is true the insurgency isn't a threat to the US as a country, we have a sense of national pride and when someone comes to our door and spits in our face wars wage as a result

 

Also got it on the rest

 

As for this debate it seems like they both weren't very good just in different ways so declaring a winner will probably be arbitrary, I'll have to actually watch it but I doubt it's a clear case one way or the other.

[stconquest]

1 minute ago, AresKrieger said:

Though this is true the insurgency isn't a threat to the US as a country, we have a sense of national pride and when someone comes to our door and spits in our face wars wage as a result

 

Also got it on the rest

 

As for this debate it seems like they both weren't very good just in different ways so declaring a winner will probably be arbitrary, I'll have to actually watch it but I doubt it's a clear case one way or the other.

No one really wins these things.  It is more a matter of not f*cking up, maybe having a moment where you appeal to a certain demographic you previously could not reach.

 

Trump acted like a bully coming out, Hilary looked weak.  As time went on, Trump got flustered.  Started waving his hands more.  Hilary stayed steady throughout.

[Okjoek]

Trump definitely played aggressively the first 15 minutes I watched. I don't like trump and I don't trust Hillary so I'm not sure there's a choice that represents me.

[JoeCoke]

This debate got the usa like

[GuNjAX_3030]

Trump is a hot head. If it was somebodys first time ever seeing trump speak, they would probably question his temperment. When Hillary was mentioning this little petty incidence that occured with American Navy and the Iranian Navy, and how that the Iranian Navy taunted the Us Navy when they passed by them? (Please, Please! correct me if im wrong but cant recall) that Trump got upset and said should've shot at them. People say yea, he does say crazy stupid shit. And what? He dosent mean it? Or he cant control his outbursts? Which one?