First presidential debate - September 26: Trump vs Hillary

[cubby]

In addition, we have Sean Hannity on record saying that Trump called in on his show and was adamantly against the war when they were debating if we should go to war or not BEFORE the war.

Hannity Confirms Trump’s Anti-War Stance
http://dailycaller.com/2016/09/27/ha...ti-war-stance/

I'll tell you what's bullshit, it's you and your ilk taking an extremely brief, and clearly ambivalent, statement and dishonestly twisting it into something it isn't...and do so totally ignoring all subsequent statements that don't fit your dishonest narrative.

It's Trump lying with every breath he takes. We're not misquoting him, he's on record saying what we have claimed and proven. How can you dismiss facts so readily? Who cares if he privately told Hannity he was against it? Which would you believe if you were in our shoes? A public and recorded statement? Or a secret and private conversation in which anything could be claimed?

[Lenonis]

once again. this whole comment section has a boner for hillary.

I have a boner for logical rational thought.

Alas these days that tends to lend itself towards Hillary's camp.

Enjoy your vacation. Maybe when you come back you'll have found some legit sources for your next theory.

[cubby]

I used to play in the pits for community theater -- you'd see all sorts of wires and mics and such on the actors to ensure they could hear both themselves and each other during the production.

I'm really not sure why I'm bothering to even challenge this ridiculousness. It doesn't pass any sort of rational test as a valid hypothesis. "Hey guyz I'm gonna take 4 days to prepare for the debate and then have my lines fed to me via a secret mic and, oh yeah, I'm not really going to do a great job, just an above average one to make sure I don't come across as too good."

Ah, very cool - I'm glad you mentioned, I really had no idea about hearing the other participants (just assumed they could). And the more I think about it the more it seems obvious that they would need something to assist in hearing both the moderator and each other.

[DeadmanWalking]

i am not talking about the damn mic. i didnt even bring up the wire and device on her back.

They give them wired devices on their backs in case they decide to step away from the main microphone. They are not required to stay at their podium, in fact Gore walked over to stand over Bush to try and intimidate him, which back fired as it looked stupid. But a candidate can walk away from their podium to directly address the audience if they wish, and they are mic'd just in case. They also need to be able to hear the moderator and their opponent, who may be 30 yards apart with applause.

[Grapemask]

If this debate has done anything, it has brought back my strong desire to throttle Donald Trump supporters. It's brought back that rage that I can't even find words to express regarding Donald Trump being taken seriously as a candidate. The overwhelming feeling of incredulity towards his legions of die-hard supporters.

Listen, I don't care if you're strongly conservative or just anti-liberal. I don't care if you hate Hillary Clinton. There's a point where you absolutely cannot, with any degree of seriousness or sanity, say Trump is the "lesser of two evils" or the more qualified candidate of the two. You simply can't. And this debate shows that.

It's not just about how he chose to behave in the debate, which included his bizarre method of insisting he was the only candidate with the temperament to be President while being the only candidate displaying the temperament of a toddler. It's not just about the fact that he lied in literally every instance that it was either his turn to speak or he made it his turn to speak, or that those lies weren't of the "I hope someone doesn't fact check that on the internet" variety of lie but were instead the "every single person of every political leaning that is listening to me right now knows that what I am saying is not the truth" variety of lie. It's not just about the fact that he went on a rampage across the media blaming every person and inanimate object in sight - except himself - for how poorly he did. It's not just about that he even then went on to lie about what he said at the debate. It's not even about how he made up an entire series of events where he was the unchallenged winner of the debate who flawlessly crushed Clinton under his boot.

It's about ALL of these things and more.

But the rage comes when I see Trump supporters see this stuff and just shut their eyes to it. The rage comes from seeing people who should know better support this guy. Is there something in the water? Cosmic rays from outer space? If you see the stuff Trump is doing and has done and can still say Clinton, as terrible as she certainly may be, is not the better, more qualified candidate out of the two, at this point it just says more about you than the candidates. We've passed the point where you can jokingly respond with "That just says how bad Clinton is." No, friend, that says how brokenly stupid the American people are. Donald Trump's an idiot, but his supporters were the ones who were stupid enough to put him there.

/triggered by the way Trump's supporters have responded following his debate performance.

[DocSavageFan]

It's Trump lying with every breath he takes. We're not misquoting him, he's on record saying what we have claimed and proven. How can you dismiss facts so readily? Who cares if he privately told Hannity he was against it? Which would you believe if you were in our shoes? A public and recorded statement? Or a secret and private conversation in which anything could be claimed?

Did you see what Cavuto said as well? I noticed that you neglected to quote that part of my post nor responded to it.

[Tijuana]

Hillary should have, and should moving forward, stick with her "Whatever Donald" response nearly 100% of the time. That speech the day after the debate was a bit over the top but, the biggest mistake she is making this election, is legitimizing him and bringing herself down to his level. The fact that she was not able to easily put away this flawed candidate, shows just how bad she is at politics, and likely how much Bill's success must have been attributed to outside advice. Bill is certainly not passing any of his mojo on to her, that is completely clear. Her inability to put Trump away will linger throughout her entire presidency, if she wins. She clearly has less than zero enthusiasm from the public, and has made a lot of enemies in politics. I fear we are in for 4 years of not fixing problems but instead fighting over who started them. Which would be exactly like the last 8 years.

[zenkai]

...I'm sorry, is that your big evidence to say he was publicly against the war before it began, as he claims? That he had a financial interest in doing so? Do you even realize that speculation about why he may have opposed it is completely trumped by what he actually said?

People do things against their own best interest all the time. For instance, Trump keeps talking. If you really think this proves your point, you're pretty much admitting you have no idea how logic works.

I didn't say it, the article said it.

[LaserSharkDFB]

Hillary should have, and should moving forward, stick with her "Whatever Donald" response nearly 100% of the time. That speech the day after the debate was a bit over the top but, the biggest mistake she is making this election, is legitimizing him and bringing herself down to his level. The fact that she was not able to easily put away this flawed candidate, shows just how bad she is at politics, and likely how much Bill's success must have been attributed to outside advice. Bill is certainly not passing any of his mojo on to her, that is completely clear. Her inability to put Trump away will linger throughout her entire presidency, if she wins. She clearly has less than zero enthusiasm from the public, and has made a lot of enemies in politics. I fear we are in for 4 years of not fixing problems but instead fighting over who started them. Which would be exactly like the last 8 years.

Okay. /10char

I didn't say it, the article said it.

The article did not say Trump publicly opposed the war before it began. You are lying or confused.

[Lenonis]

I fear we are in for 4 years of not fixing problems but instead fighting over who started them. Which would be exactly like the last 8 years.

Ignoring the attempt to turn a Clinton victory into a failure, which is ridiculous, the statement I quoted is going to hold true regardless of who wins. Neither party is likely to get a big enough majority to control Congress, which means you aren't going to see legislation move smoothly through the system, and you'll just have more of the same.

[zenkai]

Okay. /10char



The article did not say Trump publicly opposed the war before it began. You are lying or confused.

I quoted it, I didn't say shit. You read it and judge what you think it said. Don't like it, wright the author.

[cubby]

Did you see what Cavuto said as well? I noticed that you neglected to quote that part of my post nor responded to it.

Who cares? The only issue at hand is Trump denying he said he supported the war. He did. Period. He may have also said other things, in contradiction to that statement. But they are not the issue. The issue is Trump not owning up (once again) so something he did and admitting he was wrong.

Did Trump not say what we are claiming? Publicly? Why are we debating factual events?

Trump could have this some much better and people like you wouldn't be forced to argue against facts, but he didn't, so you are. Why do you support such an epic idiot?

[Breccia]

Hannity Confirms Trump’s Anti-War Stance

Hannity is literally advertising for Trump. His opinion on the subject is worse than useless.

EDIT: Also, apparently, he might not have gotten FOX approval first. Maybe.

[Tijuana]

Ignoring the attempt to turn a Clinton victory into a failure, which is ridiculous, the statement I quoted is going to hold true regardless of who wins. Neither party is likely to get a big enough majority to control Congress, which means you aren't going to see legislation move smoothly through the system, and you'll just have more of the same.

I have no idea what you are talking about. I wasn't talking to you specifically. I never said she lost anything. What are you on about?

Do you people just look for fights everywhere?

[DeadmanWalking]

Hannity is literally advertising for Trump. His opinion on the subject is worse than useless.

He is Donald's favorite type of advisor, the ones he doesn't have to pay, like the ones Donald promised to pay but didn't.

[LaserSharkDFB]

I quoted it, I didn't say shit. You read it and judge what you think it said. Don't like it, wright the author.

Okay, let's break down the sequence of events. Noxx said there was no evidence Trump was against the war. You claimed there was and linked the timeline. I pointed out that, no, the timeline says nothing of the sort. You copypasted and bolded the bit about his financial interest. I asked if this was your evidence and pointed out why it wasn't. And now, I don't even know what you're trying to do apart from weasel out of the discussion.

Do you or do you not claim that that timeline is evidence that Trump was against the war before it began? I've already explained why I don't think it is, and you don't get to copypaste and say 'it's got nothing to do with me, blame the author'. What is your position?

[Lenonis]

I have no idea what you are talking about. I wasn't talking to you specifically. I never said she lost anything. What are you on about?

Do you people just look for fights everywhere?

You said in your post, unless I completely misunderstood, that even if Hillary wins the fact that she didn't just steamroll Trump will "show how bad she is at politics" and "will linger throughout her entire presidency."

So, in essence, you are asserting that even if she wins, she'll be viewed as a loser. That doesn't make much sense to me.

[DeadmanWalking]

Hannity is literally advertising for Trump. His opinion on the subject is worse than useless.

EDIT: Also, apparently, he might not have gotten FOX approval first. Maybe.

He isn't an official advisor, he just advises him in an unofficial capacity, he is not legally on the campaign roster. This way he can continue to advertise for Trump on the Fox network without breaking his contract.

[Garnier Fructis]

Hannity is the moron that demanded Obama turn on the water in the California Central Valley, despite the pumping restrictions having been lifted months before, and having run at normal capacity since. He literally complained about a problem that didn't exist.

And this is the guy we're turning to for fact checking? Jesus.

[Tijuana]

You said in your post, unless I completely misunderstood, that even if Hillary wins the fact that she didn't just steamroll Trump will "show how bad she is at politics" and "will linger throughout her entire presidency."

So, in essence, you are asserting that even if she wins, she'll be viewed as a loser. That doesn't make much sense to me.

Yes. I am saying she, like all presidents before her, will need public support to continue throughout her presidency, if she wants to succeed with her agenda. Taking a long time to put away one of the worst candidates ever, makes her look weak. Support grows from support.

I was not referring merely to the debate, but to the general election, as impacted by the recent debate. That's what I mean when she is taking a long time to put him away.

To put it all a different way, people will forever say, "Yeah but she barely could beat Trump even". That will haunt her if she wins, until the next cycle.