The First Presidential Debate - Bart Simpson vs Lisa Simpson - THUNDERDOME - General

This debate has become a reality TV show

538 has updated with a load of new state polls from Ipsos, and it's a bit better for Clinton [t]http://i.imgur.com/tLVutQb.png[/t] I've updated it in the OP

I honestly can't see tonight going well for Trump- even if he shaped up his attitude, Hilary still will school him on the topics at hand and not even break a sweat. I don't think Trump will get buried completely, but I can't imagine Clinton looking bad in any scenario.

[QUOTE=smurfy;51109758]538 has updated with a load of new state polls from Ipsos, and it's a bit better for Clinton [t]http://i.imgur.com/tLVutQb.png[/t] I've updated it in the OP[/QUOTE] An 8% lead is a good sign

[QUOTE=KillerJaguar;51109754]This [B]election cycle[/B] has become a reality TV show[/QUOTE] ftfy [editline]26th September 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=Raidyr;51109744]That wasn't my point. That's like the opposite of my point. Moderators should absolutely fact-check. 70% of Americans don't trust the media because they don't do their job and hold politicians feet to the fire. It's a fucking joke that the Clinton campaign and nearly everyone else other than the Trump campaign and his supporters want the debates to be fact checked. You're literally telling the world that you want your candidate to get away with lying.[/QUOTE] How am I saying I want [I]either[/I] candidate to get away with lying? Part of having the debates is showing how knowledgeable the candidates are on each topic, and on each other. If the mods fact check or pull up data during the debates then the candidates are robbed of their opportunity to show what they know and don't know, or grill the other candidate for being wrong. It becomes a "how do you feel about ____" question rather than showing competence/preparation.

The ads for this thing are hilarious, they feel like UFC ads

[QUOTE=RIPBILLYMAYS;51109781] How am I saying I want [I]either[/I] candidate to get away with lying? Part of having the debates is showing how knowledgeable the candidates are on each topic, and on each other. If the mods fact check or pull up data during the debates then the candidates are robbed of their ability to show what they know and don't know. It becomes a "how do you feel about ____" question rather than showing competence/preparation.[/QUOTE] You want them to get away with lying because you don't think a moderator should step in and [I]correct the record[/I]. A moderator calling out the bullshit doesn't stop either candidate from calling out each others bullshit, particulary relating to topics you can't readily fact check like their campaign. It also varies by the claim. If Trump says Clinton wants to scrap the 2nd amendment like he has been bullshitting through his entire campaign then she should stand up for herself, but if he makes some gross inaccuracy about an aspect of government under Obama or historical administrations, or his own record (like Matt Lauer letting him get away with lying about Iraq for instance) then the moderator should absolutely step in. This is absurd. You whine about the media the entire election then when it comes down to a journalist actually being in a position to do his job more effectively than any of his peers have been capable of doing the entire cycle you don't want it.

If hillary coughs the elections over

[QUOTE=Kyle902;51109771]An 8% lead is a good sign[/QUOTE] That's the probability of winning the presidency, not their vote share, though. So really, it's very close.

[QUOTE=Blazyd;51109832]If hillary coughs the elections over[/QUOTE] or maybe she'll have a seizure in the form of blinking twice in a row

[QUOTE=RIPBILLYMAYS;51109781] How am I saying I want [I]either[/I] candidate to get away with lying? Part of having the debates is showing how knowledgeable the candidates are on each topic, and on each other. If the mods fact check or pull up data during the debates then the candidates are robbed of their opportunity to show what they know and don't know, or grill the other candidate for being wrong. It becomes a "how do you feel about ____" question rather than showing competence/preparation.[/QUOTE] You can have a proper debate without lying or using shitty debate tactics. Not that you would know.

[QUOTE=Tacooo;51109800]The ads for this thing are hilarious, they feel like UFC ads[/QUOTE] The Sky News ad is kind of wacky [media]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j1k2eLFXolU[/media] For the Americans who might not know: US presidential debates are broadcast all over the world, here in the UK both BBC and Sky News are carrying it live and Sky have been advertising it for weeks - although it happens in the middle of the night over here, so only politics fans will actually be watching live. It will be the top story on the morning news, though.

[QUOTE=Kyle902;51109843]You can have a proper debate without lying or using shitty debate tactics. Not that you would know.[/QUOTE] Oh jasud, its all comin out in the wash and there hasnt even been a debate yet. I will be disappoint if this isnt a shitshow if a debate.

Perhaps it's childish of me, but I kinda want Trump to lose not because of his policies, but because he's such a despicable human being. Is that wrong? I wish desperately to see him broken and surrounded by failure. Something about his high and mighty arrogance makes the prospect of his complete and utter defeat very appealing.

[QUOTE=RIPBILLYMAYS;51109781]How am I saying I want [I]either[/I] candidate to get away with lying? Part of having the debates is showing how knowledgeable the candidates are on each topic, and on each other. If the mods fact check or pull up data during the debates then the candidates are robbed of their opportunity to show what they know and don't know, or grill the other candidate for being wrong. It becomes a "how do you feel about ____" question rather than showing competence/preparation.[/QUOTE] You can't expect your opponent to know a precise stat, so if Trump says "Immigrants cost us x amount of money a year" Hillary can't go "No that's sounds like way more than it really is" - she needs to cite a precise statistic with a source to make it believable. That isn't feasible for either of them. If someone pulls a stat out of their ass, the moderators should [I]definitely[/I] be able to correct them, or otherwise say that there is uncertainty about the number and whatnot.

[QUOTE=New Cidem;51109856]Perhaps it's childish of me, but I kinda want Trump to lose not because of his policies, but because he's such a despicable human being. Is that wrong? I wish desperately to see him broken and surrounded by failure. Something about his high and mighty arrogance makes the prospect of his complete and utter defeat very appealing.[/QUOTE] Theres nothing wrong with that sentiment at all. Trump is genuinely an egotistical narcissist

[QUOTE=New Cidem;51109856]Perhaps it's childish of me, but I kinda want Trump to lose not because of his policies, but because he's such a despicable human being. Is that wrong? I wish desperately to see him broken and surrounded by failure. Something about his high and mighty arrogance makes the prospect of his complete and utter defeat very appealing.[/QUOTE] If he loses he will just go back to life as a semi-successful real estate businessman/con artist. I don't want him to win because in my view and in the view of people far smarter and articulate than I, a lot of his platform would be detrimental to the country. I've mentioned it before but personally I'm somewhat insulated from a lot of the "bad parts" of a Trump (or Pence) presidency. Some aspects would actually be a benefit to me. But I think it would be too detrimental to the United States to let someone like that lead the country.

[QUOTE=Kyle902;51109859]Theres nothing wrong with that sentiment at all. Trump is genuinely an egotistical narcissist[/QUOTE] I guess the old saying about people cheering the hardest when you fall is true - and if he falls, I'll be cheering very hard. I think I read somewhere his businesses have even taken a major hit lately; the delicious karma. [QUOTE=Raidyr;51109871]If he loses he will just go back to life as a semi-successful real estate businessman/con artist. I don't want him to win because in my view and in the view of people far smarter and articulate than I, a lot of his platform would be detrimental to the country. I've mentioned it before but personally I'm somewhat insulated from a lot of the "bad parts" of a Trump (or Pence) presidency. Some aspects would actually be a benefit to me. But I think it would be too detrimental to the United States to let someone like that lead the country.[/QUOTE] You're right, he'd never be completely out of the picture, but he's the kind of egotistical ingrate that would see his loss here as a great personal insult. I hope the media never lets him live it down and I hope he never gets the idea of trying it again.

[QUOTE=Kyle902;51109843]You can have a proper debate without lying or using shitty debate tactics. Not that you would know.[/QUOTE] The presidential debates have always been an "I'm right and they're wrong and this is why" format. You rob the candidates of their opportunity to make themselves look good by making their opponent look dumb (What is Allepo?) if you do the fact-checking for them. I don't like this format. Its unproductive political nonsense that doesn't actually create involve cooperating to solve a problem.

[QUOTE=RIPBILLYMAYS;51109781] How am I saying I want [I]either[/I] candidate to get away with lying? Part of having the debates is showing how knowledgeable the candidates are on each topic, and on each other. If the mods fact check or pull up data during the debates then the candidates are robbed of their opportunity to show what they know and don't know, or grill the other candidate for being wrong. It becomes a "how do you feel about ____" question rather than showing competence/preparation.[/QUOTE] I'd say that the biggest reason to have the moderator fact check is that if you're rooting for one of the candidates, you're probably not going to believe anything the other candidate says. Especially considering that both Trump and Clinton are viewed as massive liars from the opposite side. It's the same reason you need witnesses in a court case, without a 3rd party it's just he-said-she-said back and forth, and you can't really glean the truth from that. If one person says something, and the other claims it's a lie, how do you know who to trust?

[QUOTE=RIPBILLYMAYS;51109880]The presidential debates have always been an "I'm right and they're wrong and this is why" format. You rob the candidates of their opportunity to make themselves look good by making their opponent look dumb (What is Allepo?) if you do the fact-checking for them. [B]I don't like this format. Its unproductive political nonsense that doesn't actually create involve cooperating to solve a problem.[/B][/QUOTE] Excuse me, what? Either way it shouldn't be about making your opponent look dumb, it's about having a discussion that involves actual facts.

Looking at this election with Trump getting this far and having a very real possibility of winning is quite frankly embarrassing as it is terrifying. The guy just lacks any real understanding of how the world works and just comes across as completely unintelligent, childish and narcissistic as fuck. Also the idea that Hill is just as bad is just plain fucking wrong, sorry. Any result where Clinton doesn't win at least 52% is going to be pretty sad, tbh. And if Trump wins America's reputation is fucking finished until the end of days, but I have a feeling that will be the last of everyone's problems if this happens.

[QUOTE=smurfy;51109758]538 has updated with a load of new state polls from Ipsos, and it's a bit better for Clinton [t]http://i.imgur.com/tLVutQb.png[/t] I've updated it in the OP[/QUOTE] Those polls from Ipsos are more of a mixed bag I think. They show her up in Ohio, Florida and North Carolina, but down in Oregon, Wisconsin and Michigan. Those states haven't been considered all that competitive thus far. Hopefully that isn't a sign of Clinton's lead being eroded in these states.

[QUOTE=RIPBILLYMAYS;51109880]making their opponent look dumb (What is Allepo?) [/QUOTE] Yeah Johnson fucked up, said something dumb, and owned up to it within hours. Contrast this with Trump who says something dumb daily and when called out on it, doubles down. [QUOTE=The Vman;51109881]Especially considering that both Trump and Clinton are viewed as massive liars from the opposite side. I[/QUOTE] Yeah managed to forget about this. I'd want a moderator to fact check every debate for every political office available but this particular election, with historically high untrustworthy/disapproval ratings, definitely needs it. [QUOTE=The Vman;51109881] If one person says something, and the other claims it's a lie, how do you know who to trust?[/QUOTE] This is the fear from the Trump camp. [QUOTE] Clinton: My opponent said xyz Trump: Not true, I never said that, Crooked Hillary folks Moderator: Actually Mr. Trump if I may you actually did say xyz on July xxth in a statement to the press [/QUOTE] Proceed to throw full quote up on big screen (multimedia attack pattern zeta), cut camera to smirking Hillary, curtains.

Looking forward to the way /pol/ tries to spin this debate with memes and buzzwords

[QUOTE=RIPBILLYMAYS;51109880]The presidential debates have always been an "I'm right and they're wrong and this is why" format. You rob the candidates of their opportunity to make themselves look good by making their opponent look dumb (What is Allepo?) if you do the fact-checking for them. I don't like this format. [B]Its unproductive political nonsense that doesn't actually create involve cooperating to solve a problem.[/B][/QUOTE] You know what doesn't involve cooperation to solve problems? Calling people names and acting like a petulant child when things don't go your way.

[QUOTE=Trebgarta;51108971]Please people, it'll be 2 am here. While posting reactions are fine, please refrain from posting stuff like "what just happened" "oh my gawd" thinking of the people who will try to read 40 pages next morning. Make sure what you write conveys information Thunks ^^[/QUOTE] I don't hold any hope of the shitposting being kept down but with any luck people will at least post about what's happening once a page and others will star that post so that it's easier to follow.

[QUOTE=GoDong-DK;51109901]Excuse me, what? Either way it shouldn't be about making your opponent look dumb, it's about having a discussion that involves actual facts.[/QUOTE] The format of the debate is set up to persuade people to vote for a candidate. When you meet with other business people or engineers or laborers, you talk about what works, what doesn't, what everyone can do, when you can get it done, ect. By the end of the meeting you are actually doing something productive to address a problem or demand. The candidates never come together and modify their plans using each other's resources. The debate should be about how each candidate can work with the other to meet the common needs of both. Instead its "MY IDEAS ARE THE BEST AND THEIR'S SUCKS". Its unproductive in that respect.

[QUOTE=Phycosymo;51109944]Looking forward to the way /pol/ tries to spin this debate with memes and buzzwords[/QUOTE] I'm not. I'm sick and tired of hearing from them and their constant dick sucking of Trump.

[QUOTE=RIPBILLYMAYS;51109967]The format of the debate is set up to persuade people to vote for a candidate. When you meet with other business people or engineers or laborers, you talk about what works, what doesn't, what everyone can do, when you can get it done, ect. By the end of the meeting you are actually doing something productive to address a problem or demand. The candidates never come together and modify their plans using each other's resources. The debate should be about how each candidate can work with the other to meet the common needs of both. Instead its "MY IDEAS ARE THE BEST AND THEIR'S SUCKS". Its unproductive in that respect.[/QUOTE] And what does that have to do with the fact checking? Also, can't help but add that this is incredibly ironic coming from Trump supporter.