First presidential debate - September 26: Trump vs Hillary

[Breccia]

Which is tacit support of the legislation, even if the vote count has more Reds than blues.

Even if I were to agree with this -- which is some questionable logic -- saying the measure had bipartisan support continues to be the logical result.

We're getting off-topic. Let's get back to the subject of the debates, please. You're not going to be able to contradict the actual votes count anyhow.

[cubby]

What Bush signed was ceremonial. Without ratification by Congress and a Presidential signature it wouldn't have gone into effect.

Exactly. Bush technically signed the initial agreement and Clinton followed with the implementing legislation along with the '93-'94 Congress.

- - - Updated - - -

Even if I were to agree with this -- which is some questionable logic -- saying the measure had bipartisan support continues to be the logical result.

We're getting off-topic. Let's get back to the subject of the debates, please. You're not going to be able to contradict the actual votes count anyhow.

I agree we should get back on topic - and the vote count is clear. But the vote wouldn't have happened without the Dem controlled Congress allowing it.

[Merkava]

In addition to being unable to read, you have just proven you can't count either.

More Republicans voted yes than Democrats.
More Democrats voted no than Republicans.

There is no factual way you can back your statement. You are just flat-out wrong.



Whether or not it was symbolic is questionable. Whether or not it showed further Republican support, by the current President, is not. Bush touted it, then signed it -- even if the signature meant nothing legally, which is debatable (because I don't know) but moot (because Clinton signed it regardless).

Theo was pushing quite adamantly that the Democrats were somehow to blame despite actual facts citing a mix of bipartisan support (bad for Theo's point) or actual Republican heavily favoring it while Democrats were majority against it (worse for Theo's point). It looks like you're intentionally trying to support the losing side, and saying things which are the opposite of what happened as reference. Back out while you can.

Umm..I don't care what Theo said.

If Democrats wanted to stop NAFTA they could have. They had the numbers in Congress and the they had the White House. If you want to dispute something, start with that.

You want to hold the minority responsible for voting yes, without holding the majority responsible for not voting no. Not to mention President Clinton for signing the thing into law. My personal feelings for you aside, that'a a little bit silly.

[cubby]

It's Clinton's to lose, let's see if she can get it done. She doesn't have the luxury of doing bad in this one and great in the next. Either she knocks out a win here or the election becomes questionable.

I agree - this isn't Obama/Romney '12. She needs to do as well or better than she did in the Benghazi "hearing" testimony. And she did very well there (fucking witch hunt).

[Noxx79]

Umm..I don't care what Theo said.

If Democrats wanted to stop NAFTA they could have. They had the numbers in Congress and the they had the White House. If you want to dispute something, start with that.

You want to hold the minority responsible for voting yes, without holding the majority responsible for not voting no. Not to mention President Clinton for signing the thing into law. My personal feelings for you aside, that'a a little bit silly.

So the minority party has no responsibility forvanything? Why are they even allowed to vote then?

Awesome, then the republicans are responsible for everything bad that's happened since they took control.

Do you understand what bipartisan even means? It means BOTH parties. Nobody is trying to absolve democrats from voting for NAFTA but blaming it SOLELY on them, as you are, is factually dishonest.

[Merkava]

Do you understand what bipartisan even means? It means BOTH parties. Nobody is trying to absolve democrats from voting for NAFTA but blaming it SOLELY on them, as you are, is factually dishonest.

Is that what I said? That Democrats were solely to blame? I mean you put it in caps after all, so you must be pretty emphatic about that.

Democrats had control of both houses and a Democratic President signed it. I think they have a little more of the blame in this case.

You're so quick to try and prove me wrong that you don't bother to read, which isn't that big of a deal, but you don't bother to even ask my position before you say something like that, which is worse.

[Ifeanychukwu]

I have a feeling the media will do everything they can to make Hillary appear as the best candidate no matter what happens, especially after the debate itself. I haven't really been following any of the news for a good number of months but every time I watch the regular news outlets to see what's going on it's as if the media is desperately trying to make Trump out to be some kind of satanist or something. Not literally of course and Trump is the furthest thing from a proper candidate that could ever exist but I'm always amazed by the favoritism the media has for Hillary. They'll play up the smallest shit that Trump says or does while trying to act like Hillary is just "having a rough time" or whatever the hell it is that they're doing.

It's pretty disgusting really. No matter who you're rooting for it has to be obvious that all major media networks are all full of shit and lie and tell half truths whenever it's convenient for viewership and ratings. I don't trust a single thing that any of them says anymore, it's all just entertainment for stupid people at this point imo.

[kail]

Drinking game;

take a sip every time trump says the phrase "Great Again"
Take a gulp every time trump says the phrase "Win so much/Win again"

you'll be shitfaced in about 30 minutes.

Sounds dangerous. I wonder how many people he knows that conviniently back up his claims.

I hope moderators will be tough on the both of them; asking the who's, when's and how's. The shit-talking in this campaign has gone overboard.

[DocSavageFan]

I think we'll see a lot of graphics and sound bytes in tonight's debate. Much easier and much more effective than fact checking.

[Plays a video of Trump saying he supports the Iraq War]

"So, Mr. Trump, why did you, just a few weeks ago with Matt Lauer, say you didn't support the war?"

I think this kind of "reasoning" is what makes some progressives look like mindless partisan hacks. When asked 6 months before the war on 9/11, Sterns asked Trump if he supported it and he said " I guess so....". When asked 2-3 months before the war, during a Neil Cavuto interview Trump said...

"Well, he has either got to do something or not do something, perhaps, because perhaps shouldn't be doing it yet and perhaps we should be waiting for the United Nations, you know," Trump said. "He's under a lot of pressure. I think he's doing a very good job. But, of course, if you look at the polls, a lot of people are getting a little tired. I think the Iraqi situation is a problem. And I think the economy is a much bigger problem as far as the president is concerned."

And then a week after the war started he said...

"Look at the war in Iraq and the mess that we're in. I would never have handled it that way,"

One can parse minutia until they're blue in the face but the fact of the matter is that he was in no way cheerleading for the war and was in fact quite cautious and ultimately against the war and the way the situation was handled. Hannity recalls having very heated discussions with Trump before the war and said "He did not want us to go to Iraq. He was dead set against it." (https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...=.81fd798fee9d) (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dad175SC8Js - start at 5:15)

Now contrast that with Hillary and her AMUF vote and the fact that it took her over 4 fucking years to publicly say she regretted it and 4.5 years to publicly apologize for it....at a time when the political winds had clearly changed direction.

So what is the real point here? That Trump may or may not have opposed the war before it happened or perhaps a week after it started....or that Hillary clearly supported it by her vote authorizing it and didn't oppose this war until it was politically expedient to do so more than 4 years later? If you're looking for a lynchin' over this issue...you've got your noose around the neck of the wrong person. Hillary has never met a war she didn't like...Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, Libya.... Everything she touches turns to shit...everything.

[Noxx79]

Is that what I said? That Democrats were solely to blame? I mean you put it in caps after all, so you must be pretty emphatic about that.



You're so quick to try and prove me wrong that you don't bother to read, which isn't that big of a deal, but you don't bother to even ask my position before you say something like that.

Fine, why do they have more responsibility? More republicans voted for it than democrats. They could have stopped it, before presidrnt Clinton, filibustered, even voted against the damn thing, but no democrats are fmore responsible, right.

And your comment is really stupidly hilarious coming from someone who claimed others were trying to say democrats were not responsible at all.

[Lenonis]

Why the heck are you people arguing about red vs blue for previous trade deals? They pretty much had moderate bipartisan support. This is probably one of those areas that until recent you couldn't really paint in a red vs blue framework...and yet here y'all are.

Both parties had tepid support for them -- which when combined made them easy to pass. The retrospect lens can lend itself to all sorts of discussions about whether or not they were a good idea and what would have happened had we sat them out while other countries put them in place. But to try to argue it's the fault of one party or the other seems really strange unless I'm missing something in my memory banks.

[Merkava]

Fine, why do they have more responsibility? More republicans voted for it than democrats. They could have stopped it, before presidrnt Clinton, filibustered, even voted against the damn thing, but no democrats are fmore responsible, right.

Democrats share more of the blame because they had more votes. That should be easy to understand. You know that a no vote would cancel out a yes vote, correct? Pointing the finger at Democrats who didn't vote no, is the exact same thing as pointing the finger at a Republican who voted yes, right?

If the vote went straight along party lines, it wouldn't have passed. Again, that's because there were more Democrats in Congress than Republicans. And, a Democratic President signed it into law. It had bi partisan support, yes. Which means both sides are responsible for it passing. But Democrats definitely had more responsibility for it passing, in Congress and the White House.

[Breccia]

One can parse minutia until they're blue in the face but the fact of the matter is that he was in no way cheerleading for the war

Just because his support for the war was specific but not enthusiastic, he is no less of a liar when he said he was always against it.

The result of which is, he was just as fooled by the faulty intelligence as everyone else who voted for the war, then changed their mind. His also being for the war removes his ability to criticize Clinton for being for the war. It is a "glass houses" kind of thing.

And again, Clinton never denied her vote, and she would eventually apologize for it. Um, kinda. Trump flat-out lied about what he said on the record. So, regardless of their stances on the war (which, again, appear to be the same), Trump straight-up denied reality, and that's par for the course.

Oh, and the war was a resounding fucking mistake. I hope we learn something from that.

[Merkava]

Why the heck are you people arguing about red vs blue for previous trade deals? They pretty much had moderate bipartisan support. This is probably one of those areas that until recent you couldn't really paint in a red vs blue framework...and yet here y'all are.

Both parties had tepid support for them -- which when combined made them easy to pass. The retrospect lens can lend itself to all sorts of discussions about whether or not they were a good idea and what would have happened had we sat them out while other countries put them in place. But to try to argue it's the fault of one party or the other seems really strange unless I'm missing something in my memory banks.

You know me...

But seriously. Breccia seemed to be saying that both sides were equally to blame for it's passing. I merely pointed out that if Democrats had control of both Houses and the White House, then, while responsibility could be shared, Democrats had more responsibility for it's passing.

[Orlong]

Itll be interesting if Hillary has a coughing fit or has to leave the debate early for health issues.

She already mandated they keep the segments to 15 minutes or less each because she cant stand and talk longer than 15 minutes without a break.

[Lenonis]

You know me...

But seriously. Breccia seemed to be saying that both sides were equally to blame for it's passing. I merely pointed out that if Democrats had control of both Houses and the White House, then, while responsibility could be shared, Democrats had more responsibility for it's passing.

Oh I understand the point you are arguing -- but I don't even know why it's a topic of discussion at all. I can't really see a framework where you can adequately argue that the previous trade deals were the fault of one party or the other.

Not unlike now where there is some definite shifts in how the parties are viewing TPP -- and the splinters within each party on the subject.

Is there an agenda or list of topics published about the debate or is it going to be a surprise?

[LaserSharkDFB]

You know me...

But seriously. Breccia seemed to be saying that both sides were equally to blame for it's passing. I merely pointed out that if Democrats had control of both Houses and the White House, then, while responsibility could be shared, Democrats had more responsibility for it's passing.

So, more Democrats voted no than voted yes, but they have more responsibility. Uh-huh. You do know that 'bipartisan' doesn't mean 'everyone on both parties agree', of course, so it's not clear why you've chosen this small and petty hill to die on. Your argument is pedantic for the sake of pedantry and it's pointless.

She already mandated they keep the segments to 15 minutes or less each because she cant stand and talk longer than 15 minutes without a break.

So, that 30-minute speech she had the other day was... what? A body double?

[Lenonis]

She already mandated they keep the segments to 15 minutes or less each because she cant stand and talk longer than 15 minutes without a break.

Got a source for this that doesn't come with a side of tin foil?

[Merkava]

Just because his support for the war was specific but not enthusiastic, he is no less of a liar when he said he was always against it.

The result of which is, he was just as fooled by the faulty intelligence as everyone else who voted for the war, then changed their mind. His also being for the war removes his ability to criticize Clinton for being for the war. It is a "glass houses" kind of thing.

And again, Clinton never denied her vote, and she would eventually apologize for it. Um, kinda. Trump flat-out lied about what he said on the record. So, regardless of their stances on the war (which, again, appear to be the same), Trump straight-up denied reality, and that's par for the course.

Oh, and the war was a resounding fucking mistake. I hope we learn something from that.

If were talking about being fooled by faulty intelligence, I think it's a little more incumbent on a United States senator to get it right, then it is on a reality TV star.

In retrospect, it appears to have been a mistake. And there were lots of mistakes made, and lots of things to learn from it. But in 2011 it was looking pretty good.

[CellarDoor]

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".

CLinton is more likely to start new small wars and upscale the war on terror in the middle east, and escalate tensions with russia. Trump is far less likely to start a war, but if he does it will literally be world war 3 so run for the fucking hills.