THE DEBATES 2016
Comments
-
Yeah I guess but maybe the distinction should have been in the question.mrussel1 said:
C'mon... are you just trying to be a contrarian here?JC29856 said:Why would anyone commit to accepting election results 3 weeks prior? I'd question anyone's judgement that would commit without knowing the circumstances.
The peaceful xfer of power is the rock on which our republic stands. If he would have said.."Of course I will concede if I lose, barring something extraordinary like the situation in Florida in 2000 where it takes some time to work out the rightful winner". Had he said that, this wouldn't be a problem.0 -
Well Wallace was very unfair to him. What do you expect from the liberal media?JC29856 said:
Yeah I guess but maybe the distinction should have been in the question.mrussel1 said:
C'mon... are you just trying to be a contrarian here?JC29856 said:Why would anyone commit to accepting election results 3 weeks prior? I'd question anyone's judgement that would commit without knowing the circumstances.
The peaceful xfer of power is the rock on which our republic stands. If he would have said.."Of course I will concede if I lose, barring something extraordinary like the situation in Florida in 2000 where it takes some time to work out the rightful winner". Had he said that, this wouldn't be a problem.0 -
Ask an absolute question and expect a qualified answer. Makes perfect sense to me now.mrussel1 said:
Well Wallace was very unfair to him. What do you expect from the liberal media?JC29856 said:
Yeah I guess but maybe the distinction should have been in the question.mrussel1 said:
C'mon... are you just trying to be a contrarian here?JC29856 said:Why would anyone commit to accepting election results 3 weeks prior? I'd question anyone's judgement that would commit without knowing the circumstances.
The peaceful xfer of power is the rock on which our republic stands. If he would have said.."Of course I will concede if I lose, barring something extraordinary like the situation in Florida in 2000 where it takes some time to work out the rightful winner". Had he said that, this wouldn't be a problem.0 -
He asked him twice lolJC29856 said:
Yeah I guess but maybe the distinction should have been in the question.mrussel1 said:
C'mon... are you just trying to be a contrarian here?JC29856 said:Why would anyone commit to accepting election results 3 weeks prior? I'd question anyone's judgement that would commit without knowing the circumstances.
The peaceful xfer of power is the rock on which our republic stands. If he would have said.."Of course I will concede if I lose, barring something extraordinary like the situation in Florida in 2000 where it takes some time to work out the rightful winner". Had he said that, this wouldn't be a problem.jesus greets me looks just like me ....0 -
It's a stupid question both times. It's like asking a coach weeks before the super bowl, will you forfeit your coaches challenges and just accept the rulings on the field.josevolution said:
He asked him twice lolJC29856 said:
Yeah I guess but maybe the distinction should have been in the question.mrussel1 said:
C'mon... are you just trying to be a contrarian here?JC29856 said:Why would anyone commit to accepting election results 3 weeks prior? I'd question anyone's judgement that would commit without knowing the circumstances.
The peaceful xfer of power is the rock on which our republic stands. If he would have said.."Of course I will concede if I lose, barring something extraordinary like the situation in Florida in 2000 where it takes some time to work out the rightful winner". Had he said that, this wouldn't be a problem.0 -
It's not a stupid question. Considering his rambling all week, it would have been malpractice to not ask.JC29856 said:
It's a stupid question both times. It's like asking a coach weeks before the super bowl, will you forfeit your coaches challenges and just accept the rulings on the field.josevolution said:
He asked him twice lolJC29856 said:
Yeah I guess but maybe the distinction should have been in the question.mrussel1 said:
C'mon... are you just trying to be a contrarian here?JC29856 said:Why would anyone commit to accepting election results 3 weeks prior? I'd question anyone's judgement that would commit without knowing the circumstances.
The peaceful xfer of power is the rock on which our republic stands. If he would have said.."Of course I will concede if I lose, barring something extraordinary like the situation in Florida in 2000 where it takes some time to work out the rightful winner". Had he said that, this wouldn't be a problem.0 -
And that's a terrible analogy. What he is saying is... if we lose next week, it's because X was holding on the decisive score. I just know it.JC29856 said:
It's a stupid question both times. It's like asking a coach weeks before the super bowl, will you forfeit your coaches challenges and just accept the rulings on the field.josevolution said:
He asked him twice lolJC29856 said:
Yeah I guess but maybe the distinction should have been in the question.mrussel1 said:
C'mon... are you just trying to be a contrarian here?JC29856 said:Why would anyone commit to accepting election results 3 weeks prior? I'd question anyone's judgement that would commit without knowing the circumstances.
The peaceful xfer of power is the rock on which our republic stands. If he would have said.."Of course I will concede if I lose, barring something extraordinary like the situation in Florida in 2000 where it takes some time to work out the rightful winner". Had he said that, this wouldn't be a problem.0 -
he works for fox news.mrussel1 said:
Well Wallace was very unfair to him. What do you expect from the liberal media?JC29856 said:
Yeah I guess but maybe the distinction should have been in the question.mrussel1 said:
C'mon... are you just trying to be a contrarian here?JC29856 said:Why would anyone commit to accepting election results 3 weeks prior? I'd question anyone's judgement that would commit without knowing the circumstances.
The peaceful xfer of power is the rock on which our republic stands. If he would have said.."Of course I will concede if I lose, barring something extraordinary like the situation in Florida in 2000 where it takes some time to work out the rightful winner". Had he said that, this wouldn't be a problem.I miss igotid880 -
Your taking about the answer I'm taking about the question.mrussel1 said:
And that's a terrible analogy. What he is saying is... if we lose next week, it's because X was holding on the decisive score. I just know it.JC29856 said:
It's a stupid question both times. It's like asking a coach weeks before the super bowl, will you forfeit your coaches challenges and just accept the rulings on the field.josevolution said:
He asked him twice lolJC29856 said:
Yeah I guess but maybe the distinction should have been in the question.mrussel1 said:
C'mon... are you just trying to be a contrarian here?JC29856 said:Why would anyone commit to accepting election results 3 weeks prior? I'd question anyone's judgement that would commit without knowing the circumstances.
The peaceful xfer of power is the rock on which our republic stands. If he would have said.."Of course I will concede if I lose, barring something extraordinary like the situation in Florida in 2000 where it takes some time to work out the rightful winner". Had he said that, this wouldn't be a problem.0 -
You have a better analogy for the question?mrussel1 said:
And that's a terrible analogy. What he is saying is... if we lose next week, it's because X was holding on the decisive score. I just know it.JC29856 said:
It's a stupid question both times. It's like asking a coach weeks before the super bowl, will you forfeit your coaches challenges and just accept the rulings on the field.josevolution said:
He asked him twice lolJC29856 said:
Yeah I guess but maybe the distinction should have been in the question.mrussel1 said:
C'mon... are you just trying to be a contrarian here?JC29856 said:Why would anyone commit to accepting election results 3 weeks prior? I'd question anyone's judgement that would commit without knowing the circumstances.
The peaceful xfer of power is the rock on which our republic stands. If he would have said.."Of course I will concede if I lose, barring something extraordinary like the situation in Florida in 2000 where it takes some time to work out the rightful winner". Had he said that, this wouldn't be a problem.0 -
That is his fault for not qualifying. Shows lack of thoughtfulness.JC29856 said:
Your taking about the answer I'm taking about the question.mrussel1 said:
And that's a terrible analogy. What he is saying is... if we lose next week, it's because X was holding on the decisive score. I just know it.JC29856 said:
It's a stupid question both times. It's like asking a coach weeks before the super bowl, will you forfeit your coaches challenges and just accept the rulings on the field.josevolution said:
He asked him twice lolJC29856 said:
Yeah I guess but maybe the distinction should have been in the question.mrussel1 said:
C'mon... are you just trying to be a contrarian here?JC29856 said:Why would anyone commit to accepting election results 3 weeks prior? I'd question anyone's judgement that would commit without knowing the circumstances.
The peaceful xfer of power is the rock on which our republic stands. If he would have said.."Of course I will concede if I lose, barring something extraordinary like the situation in Florida in 2000 where it takes some time to work out the rightful winner". Had he said that, this wouldn't be a problem.0 -
Sarcasm, my friendigotid88 said:
he works for fox news.mrussel1 said:
Well Wallace was very unfair to him. What do you expect from the liberal media?JC29856 said:
Yeah I guess but maybe the distinction should have been in the question.mrussel1 said:
C'mon... are you just trying to be a contrarian here?JC29856 said:Why would anyone commit to accepting election results 3 weeks prior? I'd question anyone's judgement that would commit without knowing the circumstances.
The peaceful xfer of power is the rock on which our republic stands. If he would have said.."Of course I will concede if I lose, barring something extraordinary like the situation in Florida in 2000 where it takes some time to work out the rightful winner". Had he said that, this wouldn't be a problem.0 -
it's hard to keep upmrussel1 said:
Sarcasm, my friendigotid88 said:
he works for fox news.mrussel1 said:
Well Wallace was very unfair to him. What do you expect from the liberal media?JC29856 said:
Yeah I guess but maybe the distinction should have been in the question.mrussel1 said:
C'mon... are you just trying to be a contrarian here?JC29856 said:Why would anyone commit to accepting election results 3 weeks prior? I'd question anyone's judgement that would commit without knowing the circumstances.
The peaceful xfer of power is the rock on which our republic stands. If he would have said.."Of course I will concede if I lose, barring something extraordinary like the situation in Florida in 2000 where it takes some time to work out the rightful winner". Had he said that, this wouldn't be a problem.I miss igotid880 -
No, because it's a fair question.JC29856 said:
You have a better analogy for the question?mrussel1 said:
And that's a terrible analogy. What he is saying is... if we lose next week, it's because X was holding on the decisive score. I just know it.JC29856 said:
It's a stupid question both times. It's like asking a coach weeks before the super bowl, will you forfeit your coaches challenges and just accept the rulings on the field.josevolution said:
He asked him twice lolJC29856 said:
Yeah I guess but maybe the distinction should have been in the question.mrussel1 said:
C'mon... are you just trying to be a contrarian here?JC29856 said:Why would anyone commit to accepting election results 3 weeks prior? I'd question anyone's judgement that would commit without knowing the circumstances.
The peaceful xfer of power is the rock on which our republic stands. If he would have said.."Of course I will concede if I lose, barring something extraordinary like the situation in Florida in 2000 where it takes some time to work out the rightful winner". Had he said that, this wouldn't be a problem.
BTW, here's the AP lead. Does anyone think this kind of headline will garner him new votes?
DEBATE STUNNER: TRUMP WON'T SAY HE'LL ACCEPT ELECTION RESULT
LAS VEGAS (AP) - Threatening to upend a fundamental pillar of American democracy, Donald Trump refused to say Wednesday night that he will accept the results of next month's election if he loses to Hillary Clinton. The Democratic nominee declared Trump's resistance "horrifying." Trump had spent the days leading up to the third and final presidential debate warning voters that the election would be "rigged." Asked whether he would accept the outcome if Clinton emerges victorious, he said, "I will tell you at the time. I'll keep you in suspense." Trump's assertions raise the prospect that millions of his supporters may not accept the results on Nov.
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_CAMPAIGN_2016_DEBATE?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2016-10-19-23-39-590 -
I have the same concern (re your first point). Scary situation I think.... that said, I have absolutely no faith that Trump could handle it any better in the long run. He doesn't seem to understand how many moving pieces there are when it comes to this issue, and that scares me even more.DarthMaeglin said:One of my fears coming out of these debates is that Clinton may well plunge us (ok, I'm Canadian, so you Americans, really) into another Cold War with Russia, given her rhetoric against Putin and his hackers. At least we'll have to pray it stays cold.
One other point of interest was how often it's being said "nowhere in history" has such-and-such happened, when some things could only have been possible in the last couple decades (such as Russians hacking Clinton's email, or Trump's refusal to commit to accepting the election results-how often was that a question in previous debates, especially since Al Gore?).With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata0 -
Invading Ukraine isn't Cold War-ish? I have no problem with a hard posture toward Russia right now. They're not to be trusted.mrussel1 said:
A cyber war is already happening. It won't be a military war.DarthMaeglin said:One of my fears coming out of these debates is that Clinton may well plunge us (ok, I'm Canadian, so you Americans, really) into another Cold War with Russia, given her rhetoric against Putin and his hackers. At least we'll have to pray it stays cold.
One other point of interest was how often it's being said "nowhere in history" has such-and-such happened, when some things could only have been possible in the last couple decades (such as Russians hacking Clinton's email, or Trump's refusal to commit to accepting the election results-how often was that a question in previous debates, especially since Al Gore?).0 -
I felt like he stood there waiting for her to shake Wallace's hand before she went and shook his. I even though his expression suggested that he was waiting for that. Could be wrong obviously, but that's just what it seemed like to me. In other words, I think he left the door open and she wouldn't walk through. Not that I can really blame her, but still, would have been polite. I think a debate should ALWAYS end in a handshake, and she ultimately made sure it didn't happen. Anyway, hardly the biggest deal in the debate, haha.mrussel1 said:
I didn't see that. She walked towards Wallace while he stayed back and waited. He didn't put himself in the position to shake hands.PJ_Soul said:Oh, Hillary very deliberately didn't shake Trump's hand after. I don't like that. It's just rude.
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata0 -
I agree with you, the only reason Trump's ahead of Clinton on Russia (for me, obviously, lol) is because he hasn't been saying nasty things about Putin and his government. That said, Trump's and the Republicans' emails aren't the ones being published on Wilileaks, so they've got it easy in this regard. Be nice if Wikileaks didn't just publish what they have, and actually got the other side as well (I'm guessing the Republicans have some interesting emails about their candidate, some in the wake of tonight's debate).PJ_Soul said:
I have the same concern (re your first point). Scary situation I think.... that said, I have absolutely no faith that Trump could handle it any better in the long run. He doesn't seem to understand how many moving pieces there are when it comes to this issue, and that scares me even more.DarthMaeglin said:One of my fears coming out of these debates is that Clinton may well plunge us (ok, I'm Canadian, so you Americans, really) into another Cold War with Russia, given her rhetoric against Putin and his hackers. At least we'll have to pray it stays cold.
One other point of interest was how often it's being said "nowhere in history" has such-and-such happened, when some things could only have been possible in the last couple decades (such as Russians hacking Clinton's email, or Trump's refusal to commit to accepting the election results-how often was that a question in previous debates, especially since Al Gore?).
Edit: Wilileaks is a whole other thread though, lol.Post edited by DarthMaeglin on"The world is full of idiots and I am but one of them."
10-30-1991 Toronto, Toronto 1 & 2 2016, Toronto 20220 -
Of course. I'm not saying there won't be proxy wars. Just saying I don't think it will be a direct military conflict.what dreams said:
Invading Ukraine isn't Cold War-ish? I have no problem with a hard posture toward Russia right now. They're not to be trusted.mrussel1 said:
A cyber war is already happening. It won't be a military war.DarthMaeglin said:One of my fears coming out of these debates is that Clinton may well plunge us (ok, I'm Canadian, so you Americans, really) into another Cold War with Russia, given her rhetoric against Putin and his hackers. At least we'll have to pray it stays cold.
One other point of interest was how often it's being said "nowhere in history" has such-and-such happened, when some things could only have been possible in the last couple decades (such as Russians hacking Clinton's email, or Trump's refusal to commit to accepting the election results-how often was that a question in previous debates, especially since Al Gore?).0 -
It wouldn't have been a question at all if Trump wasn't now pretty much basing his entire campaign on the idea that the election is rigged. He has basically already predicted that the results would be bogus. Despite the lack of surprise that he balked, this is pretty fucked up.JC29856 said:
Yeah I guess but maybe the distinction should have been in the question.mrussel1 said:
C'mon... are you just trying to be a contrarian here?JC29856 said:Why would anyone commit to accepting election results 3 weeks prior? I'd question anyone's judgement that would commit without knowing the circumstances.
The peaceful xfer of power is the rock on which our republic stands. If he would have said.."Of course I will concede if I lose, barring something extraordinary like the situation in Florida in 2000 where it takes some time to work out the rightful winner". Had he said that, this wouldn't be a problem.With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata0
Categories
- All Categories
- 148.8K Pearl Jam's Music and Activism
- 110K The Porch
- 274 Vitalogy
- 35K Given To Fly (live)
- 3.5K Words and Music...Communication
- 39.1K Flea Market
- 39.1K Lost Dogs
- 58.7K Not Pearl Jam's Music
- 10.6K Musicians and Gearheads
- 29.1K Other Music
- 17.8K Poetry, Prose, Music & Art
- 1.1K The Art Wall
- 56.7K Non-Pearl Jam Discussion
- 22.2K A Moving Train
- 31.7K All Encompassing Trip
- 2.9K Technical Stuff and Help