Forum Thread

VP debate results don't make sense.

Reply to ThreadDisplaying 11 Posts
  • Strongly Liberal Democrat
    Democrat
    Pensacola, FL
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    It doesn't make sense that Trump would do bad and his VP would do good. If Trump got a low rating his VP should get a low rating or lower. If a person didn't like Trump that person knows that their opinion in a poll would hurt his chances for being elected. How could that person not automatically dislike Pence. Giving Pence a positive rating could help Trump. Pence didn't do anything but smile and shake his head anytime Paine brought up a contradiction or lie that Trump put out. Doesn't make sense that people would want to help somebody they just put down. Haven't seen network news yet.
  • Liberal Democrat
    Democrat
    Colorado Springs, CO
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        

    Most people judge the debates based on optics. Pence won on optics for the same reason Trump loses on optics. The media pundits are stating that Pence was a role model for how Trump should handle his next debate.

    If the public were to judge the debate on the factual content of the statements, or the responses to questions (or the number of times he ducked the question) Pence would lose hand over fist.

    Kaine didn't do himself any good by constantly interrupting and talking over both Pence and the moderator. He loses points in that regard, but should have won on the substance of the debate and his responses to questions. He actually did answer the moderator's questions, whereas Pence used every question to launch his memorized hate monologue on the Obama/Clinton presidency.

  • Independent
    Ft.myers, FL
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Schmidt Wrote:

    Most people judge the debates based on optics. Pence won on optics for the same reason Trump loses on optics. The media pundits are stating that Pence was a role model for how Trump should handle his next debate.

    If the public were to judge the debate on the factual content of the statements, or the responses to questions (or the number of times he ducked the question) Pence would lose hand over fist.

    Kaine didn't do himself any good by constantly interrupting and talking over both Pence and the moderator. He loses points in that regard, but should have won on the substance of the debate and his responses to questions. He actually did answer the moderator's questions, whereas Pence used every question to launch his memorized hate monologue on the Obama/Clinton presidency.

    Schmidt; I said already before the debate what the outcome would be. Both candidates have the similar backgrounds and worldviews (if any). Boring, both are not suited for the job as I said before. Hillary wanted an "weak" one, as well Trump, because they absolutely should not "shine" more than they do on their pedestals. Bernie would have nailed that Pence guy.
  • Strongly Liberal Democrat
    Democrat
    Pensacola, FL
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        

    The scary thing Pence is so far right that he should have automatically lost big time. His policies and what he represents hurts 90% of the people.

    Little off subject but try and share the documentary linked on jaredsxtn post. Just stating facts it shows Trump to be a monster. You hear stories about people like that and I have done business with people like that but to have one for a Presidential candidate is incomprehensible.

  • Center Left
    Independent
    Central, FL
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    You want two trillion dollars worth of tax increases. That made me cringe. I so agree that the wealthy should pay far more in taxes. Much of America only hear tax increases. The Clinton camp need to focus on stream lining the message to make it crystal clear that the increases are to those who under paid the last 30 years. Scream if needed but clarity that poor and middle-class persons WON'T get any tax increases must be emphasized in these last 35 days. Misinformation is the new black (to use a fashion term).
  • Strongly Liberal Democrat
    Democrat
    Pensacola, FL
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Subsidize products for sale. Terminally tax gambling to subsidize federal jobs programs. First $60k income tax exempt.
  • Center Left
    Independent
    Central, FL
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Repub. Voters don't look for or even want facts. They hear "you want and tax" in the same sentence and all they hear is dems wanting more funds to waste. Therefore they must go to the extreme to dissuade the notion of dems bleeding the country dry. They need to be bold and direct because most think in stereotypical terms. It's time for some serious sharp management. I hope very much that opportunities are realized and seized. Almost all (including those with extreme wealth) believe the wealthy must pay more taxes. Great communication will keep in perspective that this party isn't trying to drain money from everyone.
  • Strongly Liberal Democrat
    Democrat
    Pensacola, FL
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    All that has to happen is gambling outlawed in financial trans actions. Buying a stock and earning an income and hoping/expecting it to grow is not gambling. Then money would be invested in goods and services. The system would return to an economy and thrive.
  • Center Left
    Independent
    Central, FL
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Chet, Gambling is in our nature. Most offices have a football pool once a week. Additional pools for bowl games and especially the super bowl. A huge number play the lottery. These are good things because if you have some extra money, life is not too hard. Sin taxes are another way to feed the insatiable hunger. What msg does it send though ? In a recent post you mentioned that poor people are often smokers and because of the massive cigarette taxes they hate the democratic party. Do we really want to feed that fire ? I think a revolutionary approach would be to say tomorrow morning that while not raising taxes on the bottom 80% of America, we're going to have all gov't agencies search high and low for methods that will allow continuing services while doing it at a lesser operating cost. Imagine that. Lowering the costs in gov't. .Revolutionary indeed and a welcome though shocking approach. People are saying that they want change and that would be something that I imagine has NEVER been done. Just a thought.
  • Strongly Liberal Democrat
    Democrat
    Pensacola, FL
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    TJ, I caught my mistake about gambling and edited it. I was talking about futures trading. I was trying to avoid using the real term in order to avoid Schmidt's ire. The Commodities Futures Modernization Act preempted all states gambling and gaming laws as while as legislating no control over indicated trades. The poor people in this country bare an unbelievable percentage of their income for every law passed to punish our vices and consumption.
  • Strongly Liberal Democrat
    Democrat
    Pensacola, FL
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    TJ, Cutting government expenses is not a solution. Instead of cutting expenses increase income. Increasing income can be done easily and painlessly by increasing the size and pay of the work force. That can be done by reversing and further regulating futures trading. That would move money from the stagnant position of securing non productive contracts into entrepreneurial investing. That is more workers and increasing GDP. Negotiating similar moves throughout the world would likewise improve the world standard of living.