2016 Presidential debate debate

[foszoe]

Personally, who supported or did not support the war is meaningless. There was a tremendous amount of disinformation put into the pipeline by the Bush Administration. And I, along with most Americans, were pissed at anything and anyone in the mideast associated with Islam. We wanted revenge.

The fact that no WMD's were found seems to be less important than our failure to properly administer a country (ala MacArthur) post-victory.

If you thought my post was about who did or did not support the war, you missed the point.

 

[T.Lex]

Yes, clearly. She wants to back ISIS to overthrow Assad in proxy warfare against the Russians, forcing them to throw money at the situation and economically harm them.

Purple?

I mean, it is difficult to tell who the "right" groups are over there. And Obama's record on these things is deplorable. But, HRC does not really want to back Daesh... or are you saying she does?

 

[Alpo]

NY Times, WaPo. Come on Alpo, might as well just go to The Hag's twitter account to get analysis as unbiased as that

Unlikely as it may seem, I really don't like Hillary. As to newspapers, there are not many remaining. Certainly WaPo and NYT have their problems. But the default position from there is USA Today/Gannett. That's quite a drop.

My scoring so far from all of the debates is that Pence is the only one who looked presidential. But living in Indiana, I know what Pence, the governor, is like.

 

[Tombs]

Purple?

I mean, it is difficult to tell who the "right" groups are over there. And Obama's record on these things is deplorable. But, HRC does not really want to back Daesh... or are you saying she does?

The mental gymnastics involved in trying to separate the rebels from ISIS is a bit too much for me to handle, I'll let you try to do that all you like.

After all it worked great with the Mujahideen.

 

[BugI02]

It doesn't take a paragraph to say that your excuses for war were incomprehensible.

Yes, we were pissed at the islamic world, yes we had to get the people who attacked us. So we went into Afghanistan to go after the Taliban.

Iraq was nonsense from start to finish that left any rational people in the country scratching their heads when it was even brought up. Mindless drones ate up the government propaganda and supported it whole heartedly, yes. The evidence they demonstrated on national television were a few satellite images showing trucks being moved, that they tried to use to fabricate a story about WMDs.

Moral of the story: Don't believe everything the government tells you when it wants to overthrow a legitimate foreign government for self serving interests. *Cough*Syria, Assad*Cough*

Dont forget aluminum pipes morphing into centrifuge parts

 

[Alpo]

If you thought my post was about who did or did not support the war, you missed the point.

Gee, what did this mean?

The biggest one to me this cycle is whether or not Trump supported the war in IRAQ.

 

[foszoe]

If you think so. The majority of it is nonsense like this:

For the record he said "acid or bleached."

I agree. When a politician is telling me to trust the fact checkers, thats a red flag. The above is another example not of fact checking but agenda driving.

The assertion was there was an attempt to use software to make recovery nearly impossible. Fact check that. Whether the name is right is not fact checking that's nitpicking.

 

[Alpo]

Yes, it is.

 

[BugI02]

Unlikely as it may seem, I really don't like Hillary. As to newspapers, there are not many remaining. Certainly WaPo and NYT have their problems. But the default position from there is USA Today/Gannett. That's quite a drop.

My scoring so far from all of the debates is that Pence is the only one who looked presidential. But living in Indiana, I know what Pence, the governor, is like.

Hold that thought! It will help explain why I was so aghast at the Kasich love-fest

 

[foszoe]

Gee, what did this mean?

The post was about the legitimacy of fact checking. How the Iraq war was handled was an example.

The next time i will wirte more in paragraph form to make it clearer for you.

 

[T.Lex]

The mental gymnastics involved in trying to separate the rebels from ISIS is a bit too much for me to handle, I'll let you try to do that all you like.

After all it worked great with the Mujahideen.

Not sure of the purple.

Our Stingers helped convince the Soviets to leave. Our support - as temporary as it was - worked.

Our failure to commit to a stable government in Afghanistan was short-sighted, but, like Iran-Contra, made sense to people at the time. The world was changing, but no one was paying much attention.

Back to the point, Russia's picked sides. So the only alternative is to not pick any sides? That seems short-sighted, although it apparently makes sense to people for the time being.

 

[jamil]

It's the normal fact check org's. You can either trust them or not. I scanned the "falsehoods" and some are definitely false, supported with prior videotaped comments. Some affirmations have been debunked by both the dems and repubs. So, it seems that at some point you'll have to make a determination whether to believe the candidates and all that entails, or recognize that they don't tell the truth on occasion and that happened last night.

No one is forcing you to believe anything. You don't need to ask the question when the debate is available for your review.

You used fact checking at least in some part as some enforcement of your view of who won the debate. The only questions I asked were rhetorical ones to get you to think about how lopsided those things tend to be. The instance Tombs posted is a good example. Even as someone who does not support Trump, I can see that the press is not being fair with this election coverage. That was the point.

And of course I will make my own judgement whether the douchebag or the turd won the debate, after I've watched it.

 

[printcraft]

You used fact checking at least in some part as some enforcement of your view of who won the debate. The only questions I asked were rhetorical ones to get you to think about how lopsided those things tend to be. The instance Tombs posted is a good example. Even as someone who does not support Trump, I can see that the press is not being fair with this election coverage. That was the point.

And of course I will make my own judgement whether the douchebag or the turd won the debate, after I've watched it.

Pay attention to the moderators jumping in Trumps chili constantly as well.

 

[Alpo]

I don't think anyone "won" the debate. Trump, to some degree, put a poultice over his potential ouster by the party. He didn't do THAT bad. Hillary got down in the mud with him, which never works. She's not a good debater.

As I said, the only one who pulled off a presidential-level debate was Pence....and even though the critics went after him on specifics, he won based on presence, leadership and authority. Not knowing any details, I would say that most voters would call him "trustworthy".

Last night, one was douchebag, one was vinegar & water.

Overall, the post-debate polls show Hillary widening her lead. I would assume that that has more to do with the weekend P***** tape than anything else.

 

[foszoe]

I don't think anyone "won" the debate. Trump, to some degree, put a poultice over his potential ouster by the party. He didn't do THAT bad. Hillary got down in the mud with him, which never works. She's not a good debater.

As I said, the only one who pulled off a presidential-level debate was Pence....and even though the critics went after him on specifics, he won based on presence, leadership and authority. Not knowing any details, I would say that most voters would call him "trustworthy".

Last night, one was douchebag, one was vinegar & water.

Overall, the post-debate polls show Hillary widening her lead. I would assume that that has more to do with the weekend P***** tape than anything else.

i think those are more post groping polls not post debate polls. Those will be out by the end of the week.

 

[Alpo]

Probably. I think he may have clawed back a point or two. We'll have to see what the RNC does tonight and watch for leaks from The Apprentice.

 

[2A_Tom]

I thought you said you turned it off early.

I turned it on late. I missed the first 5 minutes, it seems you base your anal ysis on the first five.

I turned the debate off after awhile..

 

[Alpo]

I watched an hour. I don't know what happened at the end. I didn't see anything in the news cycle that said I missed anything by not watching the last 30.

 

[KG1]

[video=youtube;YMKPCl8bqQs]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YMKPCl8bqQs[/video]

Dammit! Russian flies!

I thought Hillary looked like **** in this debate.

 

[2A_Tom]

I watched an hour. I don't know what happened at the end. I didn't see anything in the news cycle that said I missed anything by not watching the last 30.

You didn't see anything in the MSMBS except the first 5 minutes and the "You'd be in jail" statement.

I never watch the news, but I have been today and that is the MSMBS line.