First presidential debate - September 26: Trump vs Hillary

[zenkai]

I predict 2 things.
1. Trump saying something offensive
2. Hillary collapsing on stage.

[Merkava]

That's because you can't read. And this isn't the first time I've had to say this.

Theo was pushing hard that the Democrats were to blame for NAFTA, despite someone else saying it had strong bipartisan support.

I demonstrated that was factually false. By vote count and Presidential approval, there was support by the Democrats and much more support by the Republicans.

I was attacking a statement based on willful ignorance, and you jumped in claiming the Democrats were mostly responsible, intentionally putting yourself on the side opposed to facts, after the facts had been presented. You want to put the blame on people? I literally linked the name of every single person who voted for it, and every single President who pulled for it, until it was signed into law. Blame them. Most of them are Republicans. Even if I were to accept your bullshit "the Democrats could have stopped it if they wanted to" as evidence they were for it, which it isn't, that still proves it had bipartisan support -- the very feature that started this back and forth in the first place.

Which you didn't bother to read, or you wouldn't have suggested I meant "equally".

You have no logical basis for the statement above. You have no logical basis for saying the Democrats had more responsibility. Stop claiming things I didn't say, stop making shit up that's the opposite of the facts of the matter, and stop derailing this thread.

I was giving you the benefit of the doubt. Are you saying that Republicans were somehow more responsible? Lol,umm ok. Then you're even more wrong.

The number of Republicans who voted for it doesn't matter. Not at all. Not a single bit. The Democrats had the power to prevent it regardless of how many Republicans voted for it. That fact is undeniable. If you want to say that they couldn't stop it because they weren't unified, then that's a different matter.

The number of Presidents who "pulled for it" is meaningless. There was one President who signed it into law. He was a Democrat.

Again, you're mad at the minority party who voted for it, but not mad at the majority party who failed to vote against it. That's completely illogical. One party had the power to stop it and didn't. One party had control of the White House and signed it.

Oh, and I'm not deraliling the thread anymore than you. The only reason you're mentioning that is because you see that your case is a little silly.

[Narwal]

I know this post of yours demands a response but I honestly don't know where to even start.

The fact that Candy Crowley's statements in that debate were followed up for 3 days by articles in every news publication on both sides of the issue saying how she was right or wrong or partially right or mostly right, but kind of wrong.... etc etc... goes to show how putting someone on the pedestal of "take this persons word for it above those of both candidates" can lead to problems. Debates are not purely about facts, they are about arguing the facts and opinions. It doesn't matter what someone is saying if he can sell it. If a Trump can sell a majority watching this debate on what he's saying, whether it's right or wrong, partially right, partially wrong... however the media loves to spin shit on their 8 scales of the binary true/false choice, I believe it's our job as voters to decide what is right or wrong. If he lies as much as you say he does, then it should be easy for the country to choose Hillary over him, and for her to convince us of it.

[Tijuana]

Partisan hacks like Trump? I mean he's constantly lying on stage, even moreso than Clinton. If no one shows that he's lying while he's on stage, people will just assume he's telling the truth. I certainly don't want the new normal in politics for people to just say anything they need to win, even when it's blatantly false.

Uh, yeah Trump is a partisan hack. That is how politics works. Nobody expects politicians to not be partisan. I don't know what you are on about there.

Politicians have lied every day that mankind has existed. What about this debate, and these two candidates, makes you think this time is any different than all the others? Politicians saying anything to win is the OLD NORMAL. Did you only recently become old enough to vote or something? No offense but, it seems extremely naive to think these two politicians are the fist to lie.

- - - Updated - - -

We've been over the 'incorrectly' before, and it wasn't, but that's not the point. We've never had a candidate who lies so often and so provably, campaigning against someone who has the same reputation without so much of the 'provably'. Trump's going to lie and/or be completely wrong about everything, because that's how he rolls, and if Clinton had infinite time that would be fine. She has to be able to talk about her own plans, and she can't do that if all her time is devoted to proving Trump wrong. At the very least the moderator needs to be able to reign in Trump's inevitable Gish Gallop and make him start justifying what he says with something more than 'I hear people say'.

Yes we have. In every election there has ever been. Ever.

[Breccia]

Meanwhile thousands have died and millions have suffered as a direct result of our involvement in Hillary's War (Libya).

Yeah, that's interesting. Especially the part where she said this to justify the invasion:

"I can’t believe what our country is doing. Gaddafi in Libya is killing thousands of people, nobody knows how bad it is, and we’re sitting around we have soldiers all have the Middle East, and we’re not bringing them in to stop this horrible carnage and that’s what it is: It’s a carnage."

Oh shit that was Trump who said that! Yeah...that was Trump. Sounds like he would have ordered the invasion too, just like Iraq, huh?

Oh sorry, you were saying something about partisan hacks? Please, continue.

[Luxxor]

Racist, Sexist, Xenophobe, Islamaphobe, Homophobe... which buzzwords am I missing?

Corrupt, Liar, Gigantic bitch?

[Garnier Fructis]

Corrupt, Liar, Gigantic bitch?

Trump's a male, though.

[Reeve]

Politicians have lied every day that mankind has existed. What about this debate, and these two candidates, makes you think this time is any different than all the others? Politicians saying anything to win is the OLD NORMAL. Did you only recently become old enough to vote or something? Do they even book at your school?

I'm 33 years old, so no, I've been voting for a while now, and it would be nice if we could have this discussion without you trying to attack me or my intelligence.

Politicians have indeed been lying for ages, but generally not in terms of the scope we've been seeing in this election. It doesn't get much more doublethink-ish than Trump claiming that Clinton started the whole "birther" thing, and that he was the one that ended it. That's more than a simple lie. That's rewriting history in about as blatant a manner possible.

[LaserSharkDFB]

Yes we have. In every election there has ever been. Ever.

No. We haven't. Nobody lies like Trumpston. Obama, McCain, Romney, Bush, Gore, Clinton... none of them approached Trump's sheer superhuman mendacity. Your denial of reality is staggering.

[Breccia]

Yes we have. In every election there has ever been. Ever.

*cracks knuckles*

Okay. Politicians lie, I get that.

Name ten things George W Bush, someone a lot of Dems think is a complete idiot, said during his run to his first Presidential term, that were flat-out provably factually false. Not "mostly false" either. Actually completely wrong, by either ignorance, or by falsehood, or any mix thereof. Bush was a Republican, a lot of people claim the media has a liberal bias, so such things should be easy to find.

Not over a hundred, like Trump. Ten. You get ten, and I'll openly concede you have a valid point. I'm offering you the chance to get within one order of magnitude. I think that's pretty generous.

Until then, I will leave these articles here:

http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-n...nap-story.html
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-me...clinton-trump/
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/...b03ba680129d06. Yes, that's the Huffington Post, yes, they still quote their sources.

[Narwal]

Because Trump routinely says things which are not just factually false, and not just easily debunked, but deliberately inflammatory. If unemployment really was 42%, you'd be right to scream "42% unemployment! It's ruining the country!" But it's not. If illegal immigrants were really 30 million violent criminals who could vote, you'd be right to say "Throw them all out! Build a wall!" But they aren't. If crime was really rising, if Clinton was really trying to repeal the 2nd Amendment, I mean...you get the point, right? Trump is rallying his base by spouting things that are at odds not just with his opponent, but flat-out against reality, and while fearmongering isn't exactly new, creating a fictional monster to rally against isn't an acceptable reason to run the country.

There are real problems with the USA. Trump's platform addresses some, sure, but he had to inflate his voter base by creating issues that flat out aren't there. We have already been in a stupid, stupid war because of made-up evidence. Why would we elect a "bomb the shit out of" kind of person who's doing exactly the same thing to be elected? What possible benefit is there to having someone run the country, when their very words over a hundred times prove they don't know what they're doing?

There are plenty of things Trump is flat-out factually incorrect about, that he continues to spout to his rabid fanbase. It is not just allowed, but damn near mandatory based on Trump's history, to be able to refute the things he says which are provably, objectively, not the truth. It's not exactly a small list, either.

If there was no truth behind what he was saying, it would have no affect on people. You don't think illegal immigration is a problem? Well anecdotally for some people it is. Issues that happen in communities don't always hit the national scale. Some communities become less safe when they're overrun by illegal immigrants who are poor and some will steal property to earn a buck. Would others who are poor do the same? Sure, maybe, but the ones that they encountered may have been illegals.

[DocSavageFan]

Yeah, that's interesting. Especially the part where she said this to justify the invasion:

"I can’t believe what our country is doing. Gaddafi in Libya is killing thousands of people, nobody knows how bad it is, and we’re sitting around we have soldiers all have the Middle East, and we’re not bringing them in to stop this horrible carnage and that’s what it is: It’s a carnage."

Oh shit that was Trump who said that! Yeah...that was Trump. Sounds like he would have ordered the invasion too, just like Iraq, huh?

Oh sorry, you were saying something about partisan hacks? Please, continue.

And just who was it that was telling the lies that convinced him and everyone else? Get real. Hillary lied her ass off to convince the President, Congress and the American public that there was impending genocide and we needed to act quickly. These are the kind of lies that really matter in the scheme of things...not the minutia contrived by hacks.

Clinton Emails on Libya Expose The Lie of ‘Humanitarian Intervention’
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dan-ko...b_9054182.html

Exclusive: Secret tapes undermine Hillary Clinton on Libyan war
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...-by-pentagon-/

Hillary Clinton’s ‘WMD’ moment: U.S. intelligence saw false narrative in Libya
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...rrative-rejec/

Hillary Clinton Libya war genocide narrative rejected by U.S. intelligence
http://www.washingtontimes.com/multi...rrative-rejec/

[Merkava]

Sounds like he would have ordered the invasion too, just like Iraq, huh?

Oh sorry, you were saying something about partisan hacks? Please, continue.

We didn't invade Libya. We intervened. There's a big difference.

[Molis]

I think I will stick with the Falcons and Saints.

[Breccia]

And just who was it that was telling the lies that convinced him and everyone else?

Be careful. Because it sounds like you just excused Clinton for voting for the Iraq War.

[Tijuana]

I'm 33 years old, so no, I've been voting for a while now, and it would be nice if we could have this discussion without you trying to attack me or my intelligence.

Politicians have indeed been lying for ages, but generally not in terms of the scope we've been seeing in this election. It doesn't get much more doublethink-ish than Trump claiming that Clinton started the whole "birther" thing, and that he was the one that ended it. That's more than a simple lie. That's rewriting history in about as blatant a manner possible.

I amended what I said. I'm sorry if I hurt your feelings. But the fact of the matter is, if you think Trump and Hillary are unique in that they lie, that just makes it really hard to take you seriously.

[Reg]

So glad I am no longer at Hofstra to have to watch this circus.

[Dezerte]

If there was no truth behind what he was saying, it would have no affect on people.

Hitler wasn't as wrong as we thought. /s

[DocSavageFan]

Be careful. Because it sounds like you just excused Clinton for voting for the Iraq War.

I do. Nice diversion though...I expected nothing less.

[Narwal]

I'm 33 years old, so no, I've been voting for a while now, and it would be nice if we could have this discussion without you trying to attack me or my intelligence.

Politicians have indeed been lying for ages, but generally not in terms of the scope we've been seeing in this election. It doesn't get much more doublethink-ish than Trump claiming that Clinton started the whole "birther" thing, and that he was the one that ended it. That's more than a simple lie. That's rewriting history in about as blatant a manner possible.

We seem to judge our politicians by those they surround themselves by:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...hful-thinking/

"All of these articles about his boyhood in Indonesia and his life in Hawaii are geared toward showing his background is diverse, multicultural, and putting that in a new light," wrote Penn. "Save it for 2050. It also exposes a very strong weakness for him — his roots to basic American values and culture are at best limited."

But Penn wrote that as a warning, not a strategy. Indeed, when staffers stumbled into criticisms of Obama's "otherness," they were admonished. In December 2007, a Clinton campaign worker named Judy Rose sent an e-mail asking whether Obama was a secret Muslim who intended to destroy America from the inside. She was fired and denounced. Three months later, when the Drudge Report claimed that a photo of Obama wearing a turban was sent from "stressed Clinton staffers," the Clinton campaign denounced it but didn't find a scalp. According to John Heilemann and Mark Halperin in "Game Change," the most ludicrous "othering" theory that Clinton allies engaged in was that a tape existed, somewhere, of Michelle Obama denouncing "whitey" — and that Clinton herself believed it when consigliere Sid Blumenthal talked about it.

But the Clinton campaign never pursued the idea that Obama was literally not American, and therefore ineligible for the presidency. A small group of hardcore Clinton supporters did. Specifically, anyone reading the fringe Web in the summer of 2008 could find the now-defunct blog called TexasDarlin, the now-defunct blog PUMAParty, and the now-conservative blog HillBuzz posting updates on the hunt for a birth certificate. It was a thin reed, and they knew it.

"It looks like Obama was born in Hawaii, based on a recently discovered birth announcement found in a Hawaiian newspaper," one HillBuzz blogger wrote in July 2008. "It also looks like the reason Obama refuses to produce his actual birth certificate is that it very likely records dual Kenyan and U.S. citizenship at Obama’s birth."

Like Trump says, the Birther movement started with her camp... did it mature or metastasize when it spread? Sure. Her camp just took a chisel and cracked the surface, the others ran with it from there. It was the crack though, that started it.