2016 Presidential debate debate

[ArcadiaGP]

BOTH Candidates Have Stated They Support Taking Guns from Those On the Imperfect No-Fly List | RedState

No-fly, no-buy.... stop and frisk... just a bunch of winning policies for gun owners!

For first time in at least 40 years in a presidential debate, Americans heard no arguments for a strong defense, the Constitution, or free markets.

 

[spec4]

I look forward to the next debate between Kaine and Pence. I suspect Pence will wipe the floor up with Kaine. Trump was a disappointment last night as I believe he is a lot better than his performance. The criminal IMO was her usual lying self. The part where she said she talked with dishwashers, etc, the regular folks , screamed BS to me. No medical training so don't know why she was constantly blinking. I can see how her lies can be bought by those too lazy to look beyond their nose.

November 8 I am going to be tight as a drum with plenty of adult beverages in hand. Seriously, civilization American style depends on the outcome.

 

[ArcadiaGP]

They wasted no time making an ad based on Trump's "temperament" comments.

[video=youtube;Y7ys8bmTf5U]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y7ys8bmTf5U&feature=youtu.be&app=desktop[/video]

 

[billybob44]

Check the history on a Johnson=Perot Vote...

Welp, here's your first. I was uncommitted, but leaning towards Trump due to my hatred of HRC. I'll now be voting Johnson. Trump is not a conservative, nor a republican. With the two major parties, you now have your choice between a liberal and a liberal.

For the voters that have been around for "Awhile", check the history on a 'Spoiler' Vote..

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ross_Perot_presidential_campaign,_1992

^^^That gave us the first Clinton..

Will do the same today with the Johnson vote....

 

[Hawkeye]

Welp, here's your first. I was uncommitted, but leaning towards Trump due to my hatred of HRC. I'll now be voting Johnson. Trump is not a conservative, nor a republican. With the two major parties, you now have your choice between a liberal and a liberal.

I can understand that, and in Indiana, that may be a viable approach. I doubt that Hilary will win the Indiana electoral votes regardless of who you and I vote for. Similarly, in Illinois, it would not matter whether we voted for Trump - Hilary gtees those.

 

[T.Lex]

I skipped the first 280 posts in this thread to simply say that I watched about an hour of the debate, but that's all I could take.

I still can't believe one of these 2 will be president.

 

[Vlad the Impaler]

I look forward to the next debate between Kaine and Pence. I suspect Pence will wipe the floor up with Kaine.

While it might prove a bit entertaining, I can't imagine the VP debate will do anything to sway votes. Maybe Pence will do a better job of taking HRC to task on her lies than Trump does, but it won't have the impact that was possible last night.

 

[ArcadiaGP]

For the voters that have been around for "Awhile", check the history on a 'Spoiler' Vote..

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ross_Perot_presidential_campaign,_1992

^^^That gave us the first Clinton..

Will do the same today with the Johnson vote....

Indiana will have no impact on this election.

I skipped the first 280 posts in this thread to simply say that I watched about an hour of the debate, but that's all I could take.

I still can't believe one of these 2 will be president.

269/269. It could happen.

 

[KLB]

Welp, here's your first. I was uncommitted, but leaning towards Trump due to my hatred of HRC. I'll now be voting Johnson. Trump is not a conservative, nor a republican. With the two major parties, you now have your choice between a liberal and a liberal.

I think it is more like a liberal and a progressive.

 

[KLB]

I skipped the first 280 posts in this thread to simply say that I watched about an hour of the debate, but that's all I could take.

I still can't believe one of these 2 will be president.

 

[Leadeye]

Slept through it, I have to get up early and work for a living.

 

[jamil]

Gotta agree. Only people who have been following politics would have watched the entire debate. Someone that does not care enough and are still undecided would have quite after about 20 minutes. The first 20 minutes was close enough to a tie that an undecided still hasn't made a decision they'll admit to in public.

I saw something on twitter this morning about a poll asking people if they watched the debate. According to that poll though a lot of people tuned in for the first half hour then quit watching.

He doesn't represent Republicans or conservatives.

QFT

I'm not all that fond of Johnson either, but he should have been on the stage. The Republican and Democratic candidate would be on the stage regardless of ratings. Ratings is a ridiculous criterion. Any candidate who is on the ballot in all states should be included in the debates.

Hey, when you can tell me anything he'd be doing differently to prove otherwise... it remains a plausible theory.

It's all worked out way too perfectly... a "former" democrat running against her, and seemingly every action helping her... and hurting her opposing party for years to come.

I'll give you that it's plausible. "Truther" works out too perfectly in the minds of the believers. The flavor of a delicious conspiracy doesn't make the conspiracy any more plausible.

There are other more likely reasons why he does it the way he does it. Being too simple to know any better is a more plausible and more likely reason in my opinion.

 

[ArcadiaGP]

I saw something on twitter this morning about a poll asking people if they watched the debate. According to that poll though a lot of people tuned in for the first half hour then quit watching.

That works great for Trump.

I'll give you that it's plausible. "Truther" works out too perfectly in the minds of the believers. The flavor of a delicious conspiracy doesn't make the conspiracy any more plausible.

There are other more likely reasons why he does it the way he does it. Being too simple to know any better is a more plausible and more likely reason in my opinion.

The reason I disagree here is because Trump isn't stupid. He's a pretty smart guy when it comes to some of the stuff he's talking about. He knows, for the most part, what he wants and what he's saying. I don't think he's just simple and prone to mistakes. I don't agree with "not knowing any better". This entire campaign has been way too calculated to benefit Clinton to be an accident. Even the simplest of idiots with the simplest of advisers wouldn't have allowed the suicidal decisions he's made in the previous months.

 

[Birds Away]

The drudge poll is more skewed

Time poll is trump 55-46

Presidential Debate: Did Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton Win

Unfair, liberals don't get out of bed until at least 10am.

 

[caverjamie]

Hey, when you can tell me anything he'd be doing differently to prove otherwise... it remains a plausible theory.

It's all worked out way too perfectly... a "former" democrat running against her, and seemingly every action helping her... and hurting her opposing party for years to come.

I don't think so - he did attack her on several issues and got a couple good jabs in. If he wanted to hand her the election, he could have done a much better job of that last night. I felt he was definitely making an effort to discredit her. Conversely, Trump...wow, and people thought George W Bush was a goof. I really liked GW (and he can dodge shoes with the best of them), whereas Trump grates on me. But I don't trust Clinton and she's still worse than Trump on gun control issues.

 

[jamil]

That works great for Trump.



The reason I disagree here is because Trump isn't stupid. He's a pretty smart guy when it comes to some of the stuff he's talking about. He knows, for the most part, what he wants and what he's saying. I don't think he's just simple and prone to mistakes. I don't agree with "not knowing any better". This entire campaign has been way too calculated to benefit Clinton to be an accident. Even the simplest of idiots with the simplest of advisers wouldn't have allowed the suicidal decisions he's made in the previous months.

Politics ain't business. Take the nonsense about NATO. He's looking at it from a business perspective, seeing that we're giving services without receiving what he believes is the value of that service. I get that. But he is naive about the binding agreements we've already made. He thinks he'll just get into office and the nation will just run like his businesses. I kinda equate this to something I've perceived in my work life.

I've known many engineers who didn't have the education but were good enough at their niche to be excellent engineers--for their niche. But when they need to perform outside their niche, they don't do as well as an engineer who graduated from a top program. That's how I see Trump. He is business savvy. He is not politically savvy. He's good at his niche. But he doesn't perform well outside his niche.

I think he wants to win, even though sometimes he blows it big enough to make you wonder. I think he had Hillary on the ropes. He was clearly getting under her skin. When they were talking about security, that was the perfect time to nail her about the security of her email server coupled with the fact that there were indeed classified documents on her server. And having broken that topic, he then could have gone through the list of things she claimed about her email server, and then one by one stating what the FBI said about it. He missed that opportunity. And I think that's more of a human failure than an intentional one.

 

[JTScribe]

Politics ain't business. Take the nonsense about NATO. He's looking at it from a business perspective, seeing that we're giving services without receiving what he believes is the value of that service. I get that. But he is naive about the binding agreements we've already made. He thinks he'll just get into office and the nation will just run like his businesses. I kinda equate this to something I've perceived in my work life.

I've known many engineers who didn't have the education but were good enough at their niche to be excellent engineers--for their niche. But when they need to perform outside their niche, they don't do as well as an engineer who graduated from a top program. That's how I see Trump. He is business savvy. He is not politically savvy. He's good at his niche. But he doesn't perform well outside his niche.

I think he wants to win, even though sometimes he blows it big enough to make you wonder. I think he had Hillary on the ropes. He was clearly getting under her skin. When they were talking about security, that was the perfect time to nail her about the security of her email server coupled with the fact that there were indeed classified documents on her server. And having broken that topic, he then could have gone through the list of things she claimed about her email server, and then one by one stating what the FBI said about it. He missed that opportunity. And I think that's more of a human failure than an intentional one.

Excellent point regarding NATO and agreements, but I do agree to some extent with Trump. Why is it that we are the only ones beholden to agreements, whether they be financial or in terms of support levels?


He simplified the point to some extent but in actuality, part of the NATO member agreement is the commitment of certain percentages of GDP to the military. Some of our allies do not meet that, and thus, if called upon, would not be able to assist because they simply don't have the invested resources.


Additionally, you have situations where NATO members will not cooperate with us. A prime example is Turkey refusing to allow us overflight of their landmass to reach Iraq. This lengthened our supply lines and made things more difficult for us and the NATO allies that were involved there. Why is it that Turkey can do such a thing without consequenece in the world's popular opinion, but if Trump muses that some of our allies are not achieving their agreed-upon committments, it's a matter of crisis? Seems a bit hypocritical to me.

 

[Dirtebiker]

Like I said.....Trump isn't a Republican nor a Conservative. I don't think his nominations would be anything better than HRC's. He's for "no fly, no buy" and other clearly anti - 2nd A policies. And keep in mind, the Senate must approve SCOTUS nominees. What needs to happen is we need to keep control of the Senate. Between the two (HRC and Trump), if one has to win, I don't care who it is. I'm voting Johnson. It's time for another party to step in.

Then you're throwing your vote away. Might as well not vote.
either Trump or Clinton WILL win! No one else can! Pick one!

 

[JTScribe]

And as an aside, I will note that the NATO members who do not invest in their defense infrastructure do so because they believe that we will defend them no matter what, regardless of agreements. Perhaps that was true in the past, but I don't see that we can afford to be everyone's big brother now. Our military spending is and has subsidized lavish social spending for much of Western Europe; it's time they share the burden of their own defense.

Just Five of 28 NATO Members Meet Defense Spending Goal, Report Says - WSJ

 

[ArcadiaGP]

Then you're throwing your vote away. Might as well not vote.
either Trump or Clinton WILL win! No one else can! Pick one!

Let's not shame people for voting with their conscience and morals. It doesn't jive well with being pro-freedom and pro-constitution.

Correct, either of those two will likely be the winner. But I, also, want no part in that. I feel just fine abstaining from these awful people in Indiana.