First presidential debate - September 26: Trump vs Hillary

[Ragedaug]

Hi, I am not from the U.S.

Just wondering if those of you who are U.S. citizens about this :

Which candidate is likely to start a future war (whether on purpose or not)

I ask this because of the current sensitive religious issues world wide.

Terrorism of such nature has always been prevalent from that particular religion. However of recent years it seems to have gotten out of control.

I know this may seem like an exxagerated concern from me, but please understand that the country that I am from is SURROUNDED by muslim countries.

1 - I don't really want to die
2 - I don't really want to kill anyone, war or no war. (because all able bodied men in my country are also conscripted).

Thanks!

Republicans will say "Clinton", Democrats will say "Trump". Independent thinkers will say, "They are pretty much the same. Both are extremely risky, dishonest, and either are liable to cause the current situation in the U.S. and/or the World to get worse".

[Daerio]

Republicans will say "Clinton", Democrats will say "Trump". Independent thinkers will say, "They are pretty much the same. Both are extremely risky, dishonest, and either are liable to cause the current situation in the U.S. and/or the World to get worse".

There's zero doubt from anyone that Clinton will continue the interventionism and war against the Middle East.

There's plenty of doubt about which country Trump will apparently go to war with, since apparently he has "deep ties with Russia" and sometimes China too. But surely he'll start a larger war than the one Clinton is sure to continue escalating.

[Mister Cheese]

Here's what I think will happen.

1. Shouting match will ensue. The moderators will lose control of the debate.
2. Hilary will have a stress/panic attack related health issue and will faint, or will have to leave suddenly.
3. Trump will say something stupid about this and make himself look bad instead of using this situation to his advantage.

[Breccia]

I know so why does it matter, if Trump supporters bury themselves deeply in their own bullshit.

Because at some point, the people who willingly choose to ally themselves with the rabid fanbase, those with their head in the sand, will be called out for it. In their own debates, for example.

Democrat: "How do you side with Trump, who said XXX and YYY and ZZZ which were all childishly false but also core components of his campaign?"
Republican: "..."

Trump might have a rabid fanbase, but not every Congressman does. They can't afford to look the fool when they side with someone who demonstrates a clear lack of knowledge and understanding of the subject they're working with. Remember: there are more R seats up for re-election than D.

[Ragedaug]

There's zero doubt from anyone that Clinton will continue the interventionism and war against the Middle East.

There's plenty of doubt about which country Trump will apparently go to war with, since apparently he has "deep ties with Russia" and sometimes China too. But surely he'll start a larger war than the one Clinton is sure to continue escalating.

Trump is a deal maker, not a fighter. He's got you fooled if you think he's out to war and battle other countries. You are in good company though, he's got a ton of Republicans fooled as well thinking he's a conservative.

As far as Russia goes, Hillary has a lot stronger ties to Putin than Trump does. Trump's been trying to cozy up to Putin for a while now to let him build in Russia. So far Putin has said no. On the other hand Russia has already traded donations to the Clinton Foundation in return for favors.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/24/us...m-company.html

[Malacrass]

Is there a way to watch this in Europe? Anyone got a stream or so?

This will be an epic shitshow and I don't want to miss it. I would be forever in your debt!

Edit: nvm, public service television got it covered!

[Breccia]

Which candidate is likely to start a future war (whether on purpose or not)

Trump has made it clear he wants to park troops next to China, leave NATO (while forgetting Putin is in Ukraine), "bomb the shit out of" targets, and commit war crimes. He's also asked about using nukes.

Trump could arguably start a war by omission, i.e. letting Russia attack the EU. Or, with China. Or, cause war crimes to aggravate literally everyone else. If he is put in a position to start a war, it will be a big one.

[lockedout]

Trump is a deal maker, not a fighter. He's got you fooled if you think he's out to war and battle other countries. You are in good company though, he's got a ton of Republicans fooled as well thinking he's a conservative.

As far as Russia goes, Hillary has a lot stronger ties to Putin than Trump does. Trump's been trying to cozy up to Putin for a while now to let him build in Russia. So far Putin has said no. On the other hand Russia has already traded donations to the Clinton Foundation in return for favors.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/24/us...m-company.html

Lets not forget about the uranium deal.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/24/us...m-company.html

[Breccia]

On the other hand Russia has already traded donations to the Clinton Foundation in return for favors.

Sigh, we've been over this. It's still baseless, debunked nonsense. Clinton couldn't have stopped it if she wanted to.

EDIT: Seriously, you'd have better luck claiming she was bribed by Canada. The vast majority of the money to her charity -- all of which came in before she was Secretary of State by the way -- was from Canada. Like, 95% plus.

[Ragedaug]

Sigh, we've been over this. It's still baseless, debunked nonsense. Clinton couldn't have stopped it if she wanted to.

EDIT: Seriously, you'd have better luck claiming she was bribed by Canada. The vast majority of the money to her charity -- all of which came in before she was Secretary of State by the way -- was from Canada. Like, 95% plus.

"First, the State Department did approve of Russia’s gradual takeover of a company with significant U.S. uranium assets..."

"Second, while nine people related to the company did donate to the Clinton Foundation..."

"Third, most of their Clinton Foundation donations occurred before and during Hillary Clinton’s 2008 presidential bid, before she could have known she would become secretary of state" - yeah, they were assuming she would be president at that time.

"The bottom line: ...the connections between the Clinton Foundation and the Russian deal may appear fishy"

- - - Updated - - -

I just find it funny that both Candidates are pointing to the other as the "bad" one, and you have liberals and conservative alike gobbling it up. They are both bad and if you are so naive that you are willing to defend either of them, then you are part of the problem instead of the solution. What we are going to see with the debate is going to highlight that, but again, people will forgive, justify, and hand wave all the bad things their candidate has done.

[I Push Buttons]

"First, the State Department did approve of Russia’s gradual takeover of a company with significant U.S. uranium assets..."

"Second, while nine people related to the company did donate to the Clinton Foundation..."

"Third, most of their Clinton Foundation donations occurred before and during Hillary Clinton’s 2008 presidential bid, before she could have known she would become secretary of state" - yeah, they were assuming she would be president at that time.

"The bottom line: ...the connections between the Clinton Foundation and the Russian deal may appear fishy"

Good thing they secured that deal buying a single vote among an entire panel of people who unanimously approved the deal.

That included Clinton as secretary of state, but also the secretaries of the Treasury (the chairman of the committee), Defense, Justice, Commerce, Energy and Homeland Security as well as the the heads of the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative and the Office of Science and Technology Policy. The deal also had to be okayed by the independent Nuclear Regulatory Commission as well as Utah’s nuclear regulator.

[Breccia]

Good thing they secured that deal buying a single vote among an entire panel of people who unanimously approved the deal.

Again, with Canadian money. In 2008. Two years before the attempt to purchase was made. It can "look fishy" all it wants, but claiming Russia bought her out is basically disproven.

[Ragedaug]

Good thing they secured that deal buying a single vote among an entire panel of people who unanimously approved the deal.

I dunno. Deal didn't seem all that good to me.

- - - Updated - - -

Again, with Canadian money. In 2008. Two years before the attempt to purchase was made. It can "look fishy" all it wants, but claiming Russia bought her out is basically disproven.

It hasn't been disproven. It's been handwaved. Not being able to prove something is not the same as disproving something.

[hrugner]

Hi, I am not from the U.S.

Just wondering if those of you who are U.S. citizens about this :

Which candidate is likely to start a future war (whether on purpose or not)

I ask this because of the current sensitive religious issues world wide.

Terrorism of such nature has always been prevalent from that particular religion. However of recent years it seems to have gotten out of control.

I know this may seem like an exxagerated concern from me, but please understand that the country that I am from is SURROUNDED by muslim countries.

1 - I don't really want to die
2 - I don't really want to kill anyone, war or no war. (because all able bodied men in my country are also conscripted).

Thanks!

"Open war is upon you whether you would risk it or not."

Jokes aside, right now we're on the path of skirting a war, delaying it, or mitigating its impact. If a war breaks out under the next president it will be silly when people try to hang it entirely around their neck. That said, I don't think either option has the capacity to prevent disaster on that front without international help that is currently being alternately opposed or confused. I think a Clinton war would be over sooner and be more likely to include refugee assistance plans that could help you personally.

[Daerio]

It hasn't been disproven. It's been handwaved. Not being able to prove something is not the same as disproving something.

Everything about Clinton gets handwaved as quickly as possible. The left hand is claiming conspiracy and propaganda while the right hand already admitted fault and said it wasn't a big deal. Nobody can make up their mind if they want to believe press releases straight from the horse's mouth because it makes her look bad and conflicts with their ideal of who she is or if she already changed her mind about that issue enough times for her to be on both sides of everything so everyone can jump on the bandwagon.

Clinton defenders are the biggest conspiracy theorists there are. The whole world is conspiring against Clinton, which is why all this evidence exists for all these things she never did and never said.

[KevyB]

It is guaranteed that she will be propped up on drugs like hitler was by his doctor.

There's just no way she would be able to not spaz out otherwise, since her condition is especially susceptible to stressful situations.

Infracted

[I Push Buttons]

Everything about Clinton gets handwaved as quickly as possible. The left hand is claiming conspiracy and propaganda while the right hand already admitted fault and said it wasn't a big deal. Nobody can make up their mind if they want to believe press releases straight from the horse's mouth because it makes her look bad and conflicts with their ideal of who she is or if she already changed her mind about that issue enough times for her to be on both sides of everything so everyone can jump on the bandwagon.

Solid evidence to support your argument there, chap.

This coming from the guy who regularly cries about "feels vs reals".

[Ragedaug]

Everything about Clinton gets handwaved as quickly as possible. The left hand is claiming conspiracy and propaganda while the right hand already admitted fault and said it wasn't a big deal. Nobody can make up their mind if they want to believe press releases straight from the horse's mouth because it makes her look bad and conflicts with their ideal of who she is or if she already changed her mind about that issue enough times for her to be on both sides of everything so everyone can jump on the bandwagon.

Clinton defenders are the biggest conspiracy theorists there are. The whole world is conspiring against Clinton, which is why all this evidence exists for all these things she never did and never said.

While I agree with your statement, I just wanted to point out, in fairness, that the part in bold also applies to Trump.

[Daerio]

Solid evidence to support your argument there, chap.

This coming from the guy who regularly cries about "feels vs reals".

I never did see Wells back up his baseless statement about Doctor Drew not being a real doctor somehow because he said something bad about Clinton. The feels

[Ragedaug]

It is guaranteed that she will be propped up on drugs like hitler was by his doctor.

There's just no way she would be able to not spaz out otherwise, since her condition is especially susceptible to stressful situations.

This is what I have the most concern about. We've seen in recent speeches that her handlers stay near by and have jumped to her side when she freezes. I'm not sure how well that would go over in the debate.