Presidential Debates

[Huckleberry]

Presidential Debates start tonight at 9pm.

They released a preview of the debate ahead of time:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xmhFRvrSqJo

[Melon]

'Bout time, we need some new Trump GIF's.

[razr390]

[Melon]

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

Love the chemistry between those two.

[wap]

Presidential Debates start tonight at 9pm.

They released a preview of the debate ahead of time:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xmhFRvrSqJo

[Huckleberry]

Shoo. They wasted no time engulfing that dumpster in flames.

[troyguitar]

Shoo. They wasted no time engulfing that dumpster in flames.

[wap]

Chris Wallace has lost all control of the orange asshole.

[Huckleberry]

"Will you denounce white supremacists?"
"Sure I will."
"Do it."
"Uh, give me a name. What's the name of the group?"
"White... supremacists...."
"... ... ... ... but ANTIFA!"

[troyguitar]

"Will you denounce white supremacists?"
"Sure I will."
"Do it."
"Uh, give me a name. What's the name of the group?"
"White... supremacists...."
"... ... ... ... but ANTIFA!"

[wap]

"Will you denounce white supremacists?"
"Sure I will."
"Do it."
"Uh, give me a name. What's the name of the group?"
"White... supremacists...."
"... ... ... ... but ANTIFA!"

I can't even...

[rockchops]

I wanna move

[troyguitar]

I wanna move

Je parle français.

[wap]

I wanna move

Je parle français.

I think you know what you have to do.

[Dbest]

At least there was a clear winner... Jorgensen

[razr390]

At least there was a clear winner... Jorgensen

I feel like this doesn’t get discussed enough! I saw a tweet that says “you guys know we literally don’t have to vote for either of these guys, right?”

[Dbest]

At least there was a clear winner... Jorgensen

I feel like this doesn’t get discussed enough! I saw a tweet that says “you guys know we literally don’t have to vote for either of these guys, right?”

It definitely doesn’t get discussed enough, it’s rigged system. You have to get over X% in their poll to get into the debate, but they won’t put include 3rd party candidates in their poll, so that’s literally impossible. Jorgensen isn’t perfect but she’s miles and miles and miles better than these two fuckin clowns. And if you support her you’ll be told you’re wasting your vote and any vote that isn’t for potato or cheeto is practically a vote for whatever 2 party candidate they don’t support.

Fuck the whole system.

[Huckleberry]

I feel like this doesn’t get discussed enough! I saw a tweet that says “you guys know we literally don’t have to vote for either of these guys, right?”

It definitely doesn’t get discussed enough, it’s rigged system. You have to get over X% in their poll to get into the debate, but they won’t put include 3rd party candidates in their poll, so that’s literally impossible. Jorgensen isn’t perfect but she’s miles and miles and miles better than these two fuckin clowns. And if you support her you’ll be told you’re wasting your vote and any vote that isn’t for potato or cheeto is practically a vote for whatever 2 party candidate they don’t support.

Fuck the whole system.

It is a shame that 3rd party candidates don't get the same amount of attention as the Republicrats. I had felt that 2016 was going to be the break-out year for the Libertarians since that election was an exhausting clown show, but Gary Johnson flubbed the opportunity. I do think that the poll percentage mandate is bullshit, and it has become a near-impossible hurdle to clear for anyone outside of the two parties. I think the last time a 3rd party was in the main debate was 1992.

[Dbest]

I don’t think Gary Johnson flubbed it, watching the interview it really seemed like they tried to catch him off guard and it worked. It was relevant questions and like mid conversation about something out the interviewers like what do you think about Aleppo? No context, no lead up, and the interviewer just railroaded him on it. Without context he was probably thinking it was an acronym for something, once he gave him some context he had an answer. Prior to that night the majority of Americans had never even heard of Aleppo.

It’s like when someone asks you if you know John Doe, and your trying to think back to school, friends, acquaintances, coworkers, etc and you can’t place the name, then they say John Doe the actor from X and you then you know exactly who they are talking about. Context matters.

How different things might have been if the dude would have just said “ok moving onto Syria, what do you think about Aleppo?”

[Huckleberry]

I don’t think Gary Johnson flubbed it, watching the interview it really seemed like they tried to catch him off guard and it worked. It was relevant questions and like mid conversation about something out the interviewers like what do you think about Aleppo? No context, no lead up, and the interviewer just railroaded him on it. Without context he was probably thinking it was an acronym for something, once he gave him some context he had an answer. Prior to that night the majority of Americans had never even heard of Aleppo.

It’s like when someone asks you if you know John Doe, and your trying to think back to school, friends, acquaintances, coworkers, etc and you can’t place the name, then they say John Doe the actor from X and you then you know exactly who they are talking about. Context matters.

How different things might have been if the dude would have just said “ok moving onto Syria, what do you think about Aleppo?”

I get it. I voted for Johnson because, at the end of the day, he didn't immediately recognize the name of a city in a country he isn't running to be President of, and that wasn't so egregious that it placed him beneath Trump and Hillary. However, I said he flubbed it because, as a third party candidate, he was under a much more scrutinizing microscope and he should have exercised more caution around a system looking for any reason to discredit his candidacy.

[Melon]

At least there was a clear winner... Jorgensen

I feel like this doesn’t get discussed enough! I saw a tweet that says “you guys know we literally don’t have to vote for either of these guys, right?”

We have a two party system.

There are other voting systems we could employ other than first past the post that would allow for more third party candidates.

[troyguitar]

I feel like this doesn’t get discussed enough! I saw a tweet that says “you guys know we literally don’t have to vote for either of these guys, right?”

We have a two party system.

There are other voting systems we could employ other than first past the post that would allow for more third party candidates.

There will never be more than two parties without changing the system, which can only be done by... participating in one of the two parties.

[Melon]

For those curious and looking for a simple, and concise explanation.
CGP Grey on YouTube has a series of videos on voting in the U.S.
His channel as a whole is worth a visit.

[troyguitar]

The international response to last nights debacle.

https://www.bbc.com/news/election-us-2020-54354405?

US voters have endured the first of three presidential debates between President Donald Trump and Joe Biden.

The event has also prompted a huge reaction from world audiences who tuned in for the chaotic event.

Newspapers and commentators around the world have criticised the tone and tactics of the debate.

As The Times in the UK wrote, "The clearest loser from the first presidential debate between Donald Trump and Joe Biden was America."

UK
The paper went further, saying the event "was not a debate in any meaningful sense" but rather "an ill-tempered and at times incomprehensible squabble between two angry septuagenarians who palpably loathe each other".

The Guardian described it as a "national humiliation".

"The rest of the world - and future historians - will presumably look at it and weep," the paper wrote, adding that Mr Biden was the only man who looked "remotely presidential" on the stage and saying that if Mr Trump was re-elected in November, "this dark, horrifying, unwatchable fever dream will surely be the first line of America's obituary."

The Financial Times highlighted how the president had stoked lies about voter fraud and urged his supporters to carefully watch polling stations. "'Dog-whistling' is the politico-speak for such language, but it implies subtlety. Mr Trump was blatant," it wrote.

The paper also noted that snap polls after the event said Mr Biden had come out on top. "But no one with a care for American democracy can have switched off feeling anything but queasy."

France
"Chaotic, childish, gruelling" - that's how French newspaper Libération described Tuesday's debate. Le Monde agreed, calling it a "terrible storm", and saying that the president had sought to "push his opponent off his hinges" with constant interruptions and by mocking his answers.

Le Figaro said Mr Biden had "systematically refused to play his opponent's game". While Mr Trump tried to directly confront his challenger, pointing at him and addressing him directly, the Democratic candidate spoke more to viewers and looked directly into the camera.

"Trump voters are unlikely to have had any doubts about their candidate, despite an unconvincing performance. Those of Biden, on the other hand, had confirmation that the Democrat was able to measure up to his formidable opponent, and even put him on the defensive," the paper wrote.

Germany
Der Spiegel's analysis of the debate is headlined "A TV duel like a car accident".

In a piece titled "Part fist-fight, part play", Süddeutsche Zeitung wrote: "Both Trump and Biden could go home satisfied because as far as the theatrical performance is concerned, both did their job properly. Donald Trump played Donald Trump, Joe Biden played Joe Biden, and fans should have liked it."

Die Welt said the debate had revealed very little about policy. "Most importantly, it showed that America has a president whose behaviour stands out and who lacks self-control - but that's not exactly news," it wrote.

Mr Biden in contrast was not an exciting candidate but "at least someone with common sense and a stable personality" who would "bring something like normalcy back to the White House".

Italy
"Never had American politics sunk so low," La Repubblica's US correspondent wrote, describing the debate as "Chaotic, rowdy, and based on mutual contempt".

Il Corriere della Sera meanwhile said President Trump's refusal to condemn white supremacy was "a message for Black America".

Russia
One broadcaster described it as a "one and a half-hour exchange of insults", while another said there was "no constructive dialogue".

"The rivals kept interrupting each other and instead of a balanced discussion they chose the path of mutual insults," pro-Kremlin NTV television said.

Mr Biden's description of President Trump as "Putin's puppy" also generated comments on Russian social media. One Twitter user said: "Two old men are figuring out which of them is more worthy to become the president of the United States, but without Putin, you can't boost your rating."

China
Chinese official media sites broadly ignored the US debate although some wrote about how both candidates had used China to attack their opponent.

The state-run Global Times called it "the most chaotic presidential debate ever" and noted that Mr Trump had taken "aim at China by blaming [it] for the raging Covid-19 epidemic and US economic woes".

Editor-in-chief Hu Xijin wrote on Twitter that the debate reflected "division, anxiety of US society and the accelerating loss of advantages of the US political system".

India
Hindi-language news channel AajTak accused both candidates of "mud-slinging", while broadcaster Times Now said the debate was "marred with personal jibes and political barbs".

But the strongest commentary came from The Times of India, the country's largest-selling English-language newspaper, which compared the debate to "mud-wrestling".

"The US embarrassed itself before the world for 100 minutes," it wrote.

[wap]