Clinton and Trump's debate preparations are going exactly as you'd expect - Polidicks

[QUOTE=LTJGPliskin;50960744]No, they're not "part of the fun". This is politics. This is literally about choosing who you want to run and represent your whole country. This shouldn't be about showmanship or insulting people or acting like a jackass at a podium, you should be setting an example and showing that you're a capable leader, not someone who mocks others in an attempt to get their point across.[/QUOTE] I agree. HOWEVER, 'should be' and 'is' are wildly different things. What it is is literally a year long trail of middle school bickering and behind-the-scenes cheating until one scumlord manages to edge out another scumlord for the seat. It shouldn't be about showmanship and insults, but it [b]is[/b] about showmanship and insults. And I don't know how we could possibly change that, given the very people who need to vote in favor of that legislation are the ones taht benefit most from the broken nature of things. [QUOTE=fruxodaily;50960070]You won't see Clinton fuck up a debate because she's practiced to handle a fuck up and to get back on her feet as quickly as possible, mean while Trump walks into anything without being prepared i honestly dont see why you lot think he's worthy presidential material, if a candidate can't even be prepared to go head to head with his opponent, how do you think he's going to go when there's a huge situation happening and there needs to be a split second decision. You need to understand the regions, zones, places that matter to the US the most so when something arises you can act on it fast and with minimal casualties, I don't see Trump opening up a CIA Factbook anytime to study the parts of the world where he'll be required to act on if something happened Another reason why I don't think anyone should trust Trump with the nuclear codes[/QUOTE] And so few of us do that he really doesn't stand a reasonable chance of winning. He's managed to turn die-hard GOP stronghold states blue. I don't think there's a [i]single[/i] truly red state on the map right now, they're all shades of pink at best, and it's all because of him opening his dumb mouth. Hilary Clinton is our next president, whether any of us like it or not. He is only getting in the white house if he does something radical, and possibly illegal, to skew the votes severely.

[QUOTE=Blazyd;50964901]This is the current schedule: Sept. 26, 9 P.M. EDT, at Hofstra University, New York Oct 4, 9 P.M. EDT, at Longwood University, Farmville, Virginia (VP Debate) Oct. 9, 9 P.M. EDT, at Washington University in St. Louis, Missouri Oct. 19, 9 P.M. EDT, at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas[/QUOTE] Thanks!

[QUOTE=Raidyr;50964343]Yeah I don't know what debate space core is referencing specifically but I found this [video=youtube;gPVhPqy_Z6U]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gPVhPqy_Z6U[/video] How can you sit there and objectively say Clinton's answer was worse? [editline]28th August 2016[/editline] When Cooper brings up the democratic governors who say that fracking can be done safety (entirely, objectively, demonstrably true) Sanders just says they are wrong with absolutely nothing backing it up then launches into his anti-establishment branding, as if that just makes him right.[/QUOTE] Clinton said (not word for word, but close enough, feel free to compare) [QUOTE]You know I don't support it when any locality or state is against it, number one, I dont support it when the release of methane or contamination of water is present, and I dont support it number 3 unless we require anyone who does it to tell us exactly what chemicals they are using. under these three conditions, I dont think there will be many places in america where fracking will take place. we need regulations in current fracking installations and new ones should meet the conditions like those I just stated.[/QUOTE] not the snippet I was referring to, but this is new to me. I will concede that here, she gives a clear opinion. I do still disagree on the subject though, since I believe we should be moving away from fossil fuels and toward green electric energy. Fracking supports fossil fuels, and the act of pumping waste water back into the ground is what causes most of its problems. Hillary did not mention preventing that from happening, and so I cannot agree with her support.

do they have like inside men on the campaign do they know this is whats going to happen this looks biased af as much as i dislike trump

[QUOTE=Swebonny;50962739]I remember staying up to 4AM just to watch Obama and Romney debate each other. Can't wait for this debate to happen. HIGH ENERGY.[/QUOTE] Oh man, I remember people considering Romney to be an insane, out-of-touch 1%-er in those threads. Who could imagine how badly things would devolve.

New report from the NY Times says Clinton's team is talking to the ghostwriter of Art of the Deal and psychology experts, as well as conducting 'forensic-style analysis' of his primary debate performances, with the aim of figuring out precise methods of messing with Trump that will bait him into saying dumb shit or lashing out [url]http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/30/us/politics/hillary-clinton-donald-trump-debate.html[/url]

[QUOTE=smurfy;50970482]New report from the NY Times says Clinton's team is talking to the ghostwriter of Art of the Deal and psychology experts, as well as conducting 'forensic-style analysis' of his primary debate performances, with the aim of figuring out precise methods of messing with Trump that will bait him into saying dumb shit or lashing out [url]http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/30/us/politics/hillary-clinton-donald-trump-debate.html[/url][/QUOTE] this will be good

[QUOTE=smurfy;50970482]New report from the NY Times says Clinton's team is talking to the ghostwriter of Art of the Deal and psychology experts, as well as conducting 'forensic-style analysis' of his primary debate performances, with the aim of figuring out precise methods of messing with Trump that will bait him into saying dumb shit or lashing out [url]http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/30/us/politics/hillary-clinton-donald-trump-debate.html[/url][/QUOTE] Oh, man, I knew Clinton was obsessive about debate preparation, but this is an exciting amount of prep work. Now I'm hoping he's goaded into saying something phenomenally offensive and blatantly bigoted and outrageous on live television in front of tens of millions of people. Like, /pol/ level shit. I'm too hyped for this shit now.

[QUOTE=smurfy;50970482]New report from the NY Times says Clinton's team is talking to the ghostwriter of Art of the Deal and psychology experts, as well as conducting 'forensic-style analysis' of his primary debate performances, with the aim of figuring out precise methods of messing with Trump that will bait him into saying dumb shit or lashing out [url]http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/30/us/politics/hillary-clinton-donald-trump-debate.html[/url][/QUOTE] advanced trolling, beyond what mere mortals like us can hope to achieve it's beautiful

[QUOTE=space1;50961507]So you're okay with people being called pussies, dicks, cunts, etc. but if you call them a cuck it's somehow bad? Is calling someone a dick implying that they're a giant throbbing phallus? By your logic calling people these same profanities are sexist. PLEASE don't try to police the language of others, especially of words you're ignorant to. EVEN if that shit is true, it's only a tiny niche community in which that happened and isn't how it is generally used. This isn't some sort of racial slur, it's shaming people on their shitty "holier than thou" attitudes. Cuck is short sweet and to the point, whereas "regressive" only really applies to the crazy leftists/prohillary/jillstein crowd. And NEVER assume I'm a "right-winger" as I'm a left leaning libertarian classic liberal for informal purposes about the general nature of my viewpoints, but don't stick any preconceived notion about what you think that is as I really don't pick a side. I try to find the best answers on my own and not with the help of some senseless ideologue on any side of the spectrum who denounces everything the other side does simply because they are on the other side.[/QUOTE] The difference is that when you call someone a dick or an arsehole you're simply making a negative value-judgement of their behavior, you aren't making a comment about their sexual promiscuity, likelihood of losing their girlfriend to a large, scary black man or attempting to equate that person's specified behavior as negative because it is 'weak' or 'unmanly' or 'beta'. If that was not your intended meaning, why even use the term cuck instead of dick/arsehole/cunt? Unless the person in question is using the insult as a part of following some in-group, out-group behavior (i.e. calling someone a cuckservative because they apparently aren't a real conservative, etc.) or doing it because all the cool kids are saying cuck nowadays, there's no reason for it. When you use the term you're either operating off the basis of some sort of supposed "sexual weakness" on the part of your supposed opponents that would allow them to have their girlfriend stolen by a black man, or else you're mindlessly following a trend without putting any thought into it because you care more about following the group and receiving positive affirmation than caring about what the words you spew out actually mean.