Bigly

**manker** · 10-21-2016, 08:42 AM

Originally Posted by Skiz

Originally Posted by IdolEyes787

The truly disturbing thing is not Trump's comment but that 39% of those polled believe he won the debate.

Disagreeing with, even hating Clinton I understand but a complete avoidance of the truth of what one has just witnessed is a form of delusion so profound that it borders on fanaticism.

Well, when they've made up their mind who they're going to vote for, of course they're going to say he won.

Then you are one of the fanatical idiots that Idol was talking about.

How about a sports analogy. It involves a tie, mind, so suspend disbelief for a moment.
You're a big fan of red sports team, they're playing blue sports team - their hated rivals.
You're at the match and red sports team don't even leave their own half, the hated blue sports team have 82% of possession, 40 shots at goal, 22 of which are on target. A combination of blind luck and referee ineptitude mean that the game finishes scoreless. There is no tangible winner.

You're on the bus on the way home and an acquaintance of yours, who is a fan of green sports team, looks up from his phone and he sees you wearing your red sports team shirt. He says; '0-0, damn. Who had the better of the game?'

Do you answer red or blue?

Bear in mind that green team sports fan will see the highlights later on TV, lying would just make you look like a fanatical idiot.

**manker** · 10-21-2016, 09:01 AM

I'm a big fan of the United Manchester sports team.
I was at the game on Monday when we heroically didn't lose against the racist Liver Pool sports team.

Though much adversity from the overly compensating reverse-biased Altrincham umpire and cheating from the cheating Liver sports team participants, we stoically allowed the game to finish 0-0 despite being the morally and technically superior sports team.

I think we can all learn something from that.

**mjmacky** · 10-21-2016, 09:15 AM

You make a grand effort to sincerely communicate your point through a football analogy, manker, but I'm going to call into question the entire underlying tone of this topic.

Debates are not sporting events, so there will never be a tangible win or loss. Debates result in revelations, persuasions, consequences, etc., and establishing a winner undermines the purpose, which is to explore the minds of the debaters or set topics, generally speaking.

Now that I've gotten that out of the way, there is really no point in having Clinton debate Trump. Both of them are well known to the public that would even bother watching it. Trump has been putting out his buffoonery on an almost daily basis since he started his campaign, which is covered extensively by media sources, and Clinton has long been under public scrutiny. There isn't really anything new to discover in the debate format. At best, it's free publicity for both candidates as we approach the election.

That being said, this is a fucking embarrassing election, and I need to start pretending I'm Canadian again.

**manker** · 10-21-2016, 09:45 AM

Originally Posted by mjmacky

You make a grand effort to sincerely communicate your point through a football analogy, manker, but I'm going to call into question the entire underlying tone of this topic.

Debates are not sporting events, so there will never be a tangible win or loss. Debates result in revelations, persuasions, consequences, etc., and establishing a winner undermines the purpose, which is to explore the minds of the debaters or set topics, generally speaking.

Now that I've gotten that out of the way, there is really no point in having Clinton debate Trump. Both of them are well known to the public that would even bother watching it. Trump has been putting out his buffoonery on an almost daily basis since he started his campaign, which is covered extensively by media sources, and Clinton has long been under public scrutiny. There isn't really anything new to discover in the debate format. At best, it's free publicity for both candidates as we approach the election.

That being said, this is a fucking embarrassing election, and I need to start pretending I'm Canadian again.

Yes, that's exactly it. Tangible wins are impossible, you can't win an election during a debate.
However, politics is all about the perception of the electorate, and therefore about these intangible wins and losses. Eating a sausage sandwich in a certain type of restaurant could be a net 'win' for one politician, and a horrendous loss for another. It is intriguing.

It's inevitable that people will speculate who 'won' when something as high-profile as these televised debates occur.
It would take a particularly snot-nosed observer to look down upon people for doing so.

That said, the point remains that if you opine that your team had the better of events in a situation like I describe above [or, more subjectively, in the context of the recent debate], then you're a fanatical simpleton.

**shaina** · 10-21-2016, 10:14 AM

Originally Posted by mjmacky

You make a grand effort to sincerely communicate your point through a football analogy, manker, but I'm going to call into question the entire underlying tone of this topic.
Debates are not sporting events, so there will never be a tangible win or loss. Debates result in revelations, persuasions, consequences, etc., and establishing a winner undermines the purpose, which is to explore the minds of the debaters or set topics, generally speaking.
Now that I've gotten that out of the way, there is really no point in having Clinton debate Trump. Both of them are well known to the public that would even bother watching it. Trump has been putting out his buffoonery on an almost daily basis since he started his campaign, which is covered extensively by media sources, and Clinton has long been under public scrutiny. There isn't really anything new to discover in the debate format. At best, it's free publicity for both candidates as we approach the election.
That being said, this is a fucking embarrassing election, and I need to start pretending I'm Canadian again.

What i can't understand Macky, and lets forget all the dirty politics on both candidates that one or the other is going to be the next president. We all know all the promises politicians give, and most of the time it is the same shit, and you really hope some of the bigger things they promise do happen, and again that helps...

But really the thing i don't understand, is Trump only has Trump, but watching Clinton and seeing some of her policies have Sanders written all over it, and i really think Sanders will hold her to the important ones to make sure they will be implemented, and behind closed doors Sanders will be put/offered a position on her party wherever he wants.
I watched all the debates and you can see her positions really move towards Sanders (not all of course)..

Trust or no trust, Bernie is out there supporting Clinton, I would assume Sanders supporters watched the debates as well.
What is the problem, i can't figure out?? If you are a Sanders supporter and you have common sense, how can you not support her, when Trump doesn't even look like he has tried to motivate Sanders revolution? (Other than a few comments in the debates from Trump saying Bernie didn't think Clinton wasn't fit to run)...

**shaina** · 10-21-2016, 10:20 AM

Originally Posted by mjmacky

That being said, this is a fucking embarrassing election, and I need to start pretending I'm Canadian again.

Even saying this in a joking manor, We now have a Liberal government here and it is still the same shit different day!! I mean i think Trudeau really won on promising to Legalize Marijuana, and the voter turnout was crazy!, and that is not really close to being implemented.

And the other scary thing in the US, lets see if the Republicans can hold the senate, or did Trump fuck all that up??

**mjmacky** · 10-21-2016, 11:09 AM

Originally Posted by shaina

Even saying this in a joking manor

Incidentally, that's where I pick up half of my one liners

**mjmacky** · 10-21-2016, 11:10 AM

Originally Posted by manker

Originally Posted by mjmacky

You make a grand effort to sincerely communicate your point through a football analogy, manker, but I'm going to call into question the entire underlying tone of this topic.

Debates are not sporting events, so there will never be a tangible win or loss. Debates result in revelations, persuasions, consequences, etc., and establishing a winner undermines the purpose, which is to explore the minds of the debaters or set topics, generally speaking.

Now that I've gotten that out of the way, there is really no point in having Clinton debate Trump. Both of them are well known to the public that would even bother watching it. Trump has been putting out his buffoonery on an almost daily basis since he started his campaign, which is covered extensively by media sources, and Clinton has long been under public scrutiny. There isn't really anything new to discover in the debate format. At best, it's free publicity for both candidates as we approach the election.

That being said, this is a fucking embarrassing election, and I need to start pretending I'm Canadian again.

Yes, that's exactly it. Tangible wins are impossible, you can't win an election during a debate.
However, politics is all about the perception of the electorate, and therefore about these intangible wins and losses. Eating a sausage sandwich in a certain type of restaurant could be a net 'win' for one politician, and a horrendous loss for another. It is intriguing.

It's inevitable that people will speculate who 'won' when something as high-profile as these televised debates occur.
It would take a particularly snot-nosed observer to look down upon people for doing so.

That said, the point remains that if you opine that your team had the better of events in a situation like I describe above [or, more subjectively, in the context of the recent debate], then you're a fanatical simpleton.

I'm only snot-nosed when I don't have a booger graveyard nearby. I prefer it to be on my right, and a small bin is ideal.