First presidential debate - September 26: Trump vs Hillary

[DeadmanWalking]

You are aware that most of the criticism against her has been fabricated, right? That she in fact is one of the most qualified candidates in the history of our electoral process to run for President.

I never said she wasn't qualified. She has a lot of negatives going against her too, otherwise she would be roflstomping Trump. If Trump is considered qualified merely because he runs businesses (with a lot of failures) then she is certainly qualified.

She also doesn't get baited into talking about the size of her cock, is capable of thinking about what she wants to say before it vomits out of her mouth and knows the policies of her party and even managed to craft a few policies herself.
I wouldn't piss on trump if he was on fire, I would grab marshmellows and share them with Hillary. I'm an independent voter, I like some policies from both sides of the aisles but I lean democrat because I won't give up my morals on civil rights to save some money on taxes.

[zenkai]

What do you mean 'you people'? You know it takes two to tango right? Perhaps you are part of the reason there is an argument? I know that would require some self-introspection so just ignore that I said that.

It only takes one person to initiate it. It takes 2 people to fist fight but only one to throw the first punch, and we call that the aggressor.

[Lenonis]

Obama would be up 60 points.

No he wouldn't. That's laughable when you have democratic and republican party members who vote their party regardless of the candidate. The country is just too split for someone to win by 60 points (which, btw, means a 80% to 20% win).

Please stop saying we have a two party system. That implies the system only has two parties, or some sort of limit to how many parties there can be. I collect third party candidate votes. I am personally up to 13 parties I have now voted for in my life. (obviously none for president)

We have a two party system. Until the third parties get serious about winning and do more than just pop up every 4 years to whine about how unfair the system is. And the 12th amendment.

[LaserSharkDFB]

He said




I said there was and I linked proof he was against it.

Then the argument turned into "Well he wasn't against it before it started"

I quoted the article saying why he was probably against it, even before publicly speaking about it, which would be out of financial reasons.

In that same quote was written



Even with that quoted from the article, something I DID NOT OMIT you still some how got that I was trying to has some sort of big evidence he was against the war before it started when all I was doing was bringing up talking points in a conversation.

Why is everything an argument with you people?

Maybe because you change the subject of the conversation in your own head and don't tell anyone else? That may be it. If you had a problem with my statement about there being no evidence he was against it, you could have pointed that out when it happened. Instead you just copypasted and made me guess what you were talking about.

[cubby]

I never said she wasn't qualified. She has a lot of negatives going against her too, otherwise she would be roflstomping Trump. If Trump is considered qualified merely because he runs businesses (with a lot of failures) then she is certainly qualified.

She also doesn't get baited into talking about the size of her cock, is capable of thinking about what she wants to say before it vomits out of her mouth and knows the policies of her party and even managed to craft a few policies herself.
I wouldn't piss on trump if he was on fire, I would grab marshmellows and share them with Hillary. I'm an independent voter, I like some policies from both sides of the aisles but I lean democrat because I won't give up my morals on civil rights to save some money on taxes.

Lol re the fire and marshmallows. I would definitely join you two.

I still maintain that the negatives are mostly fabricated. Which is disturbing. But I have nothing after that because the DNC would do the same thing (if it was necessary re Trump - which, lol, it's not).

[DocSavageFan]

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?

Wrong. He stated that he opposed the Iraq war before the war started which he clearly did. The talk of war was just beginning during the 9/11/12 Stern interview where he made an off-handed and unenthusiastic comment "I guess so" regarding the question...which would indicate to most reasonable people that he clearly hadn't given it a lot of thought at the time and certainly wasn't beating the war drum like so many were at the time. As we got closer to war, he definitely started opposing it more vigorously which is indeed supported by factual events...factual events which you willfully chose to ignore.

[Lenonis]

Lol, yeah - with her being the most unfavored DNC candidate in history (far more than anything in 2008) Trump is about the only one she could beat. I hate saying it, but most of the other Class of Clowns would be doing a much better job at this point.

Some of them, absolutely.

But I don't see candidates like Carson or Cruz doing particularly well. Carson has negative charisma and some really bizarre policy stances and Cruz is way too extreme. I could see candidates like Kasich, Fiorina, even Christie minus bridgegate doing decent against Clinton.

[cubby]

Some of them, absolutely.

But I don't see candidates like Carson or Cruz doing particularly well. Carson has negative charisma and some really bizarre policy stances and Cruz is way too extreme. I could see candidates like Kasich, Fiorina, even Christie minus bridgegate doing decent against Clinton.

Interesting. I always thought Kasich was the best choice the GOP had going for them. Ohio governor, smart, not entirely crazy. Moderate, even.

[Felya]

Lol, yeah - with her being the most unfavored DNC candidate in history (far more than anything in 2008) Trump is about the only one she could beat. I hate saying it, but most of the other Class of Clowns would be doing a much better job at this point.

You know, interestingly enough, her and Trump were friends way back. And there was that call a week before he threw his hat in the ring between her and Trump. I'll redact is this qualifies as a conspiracy thing - but just wanted to point it out as a thought.

South Park is making a similar connection in Garrison trying to lose. Before anyone calls South Park liberal for saying Trump supporters are backing a guy that is intentionally saying and doing things to not get elected:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Park_Republican

[cubby]

Wrong. He stated that he opposed the Iraq war before the war started which he clearly did. The talk of war was just beginning during the 9/11/12 Stern interview where he made an off-handed and unenthusiastic comment "I guess so" regarding the question...which would indicate to most reasonable people that he clearly hadn't given it a lot of thought at the time and certainly wasn't beating the war drum like so many were at the time. As we got closer to war, he definitely started opposing it more vigorously which is indeed supported by factual events...factual events which you willfully chose to ignore.

Did he say the quote that Hillary attributed to him or not?

[truckboattruck]

What? No he didn't. You are deeply confused. Before the war started, he had the interview with Stern and said he was - hesitantly and unenthusiastically - in favor of the war. He wasn't publicly against it until well after it started. I'd say it's actually worse if your claim that he was in favor of it after it had already got going was true.

I dont think you have a complete grasp of time....
or you are just sorely biased and refuse to acknowledge earlier statements

[Lenonis]

Interesting. I always thought Kasich was the best choice the GOP had going for them. Ohio governor, smart, not entirely crazy. Moderate, even.

Kasich has the broadest appeal out of a group of candidates that really don't appeal outside of the base. But the GOP showed this cycle they aren't interested in broadening their appeal -- in fact they are taking steps to narrow it even further.

[Deleted]

An earpiece for anti-seizures?

what

You can be talked out of some seizures.
(not saying that is the case).

[cubby]

South Park is making a similar connection in Garrison trying to lose. Before anyone calls South Park liberal for saying Trump supporters are backing a guy that is intentionally saying and doing things to not get elected:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Park_Republican

That is very, very interesting. So the idea would be, just to see if I understand the South Park plot, Garrison got the nomination in order to lose and let the other candidate win?

[zenkai]

Maybe because you change the subject of the conversation in your own head and don't tell anyone else? That may be it. If you had a problem with my statement about there being no evidence he was against it, you could have pointed that out when it happened. Instead you just copypasted and made me guess what you were talking about.

I don't see how it was hard to follow...

[Paranoid Android]

Kasich has the broadest appeal out of a group of candidates that really don't appeal outside of the base. But the GOP showed this cycle they aren't interested in broadening their appeal -- in fact they are taking steps to narrow it even further.

Yeah the base was like "Lets burn this motherfucker to the ground". Kasich wasn't even competitive, which shows they are done with "establishment" types. Jeb of course was in there, probably with Rubio.

If Kasich was running I would probably be on his side. I don't agree with him totally, but would give him a shot.

[zenkai]

South Park is making a similar connection in Garrison trying to lose. Before anyone calls South Park liberal for saying Trump supporters are backing a guy that is intentionally saying and doing things to not get elected:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Park_Republican

If Trump was trying to lose he did a better job in the Primaries when he was act his peak of insanity.

[Felya]

Some of them, absolutely.

But I don't see candidates like Carson or Cruz doing particularly well. Carson has negative charisma and some really bizarre policy stances and Cruz is way too extreme. I could see candidates like Kasich, Fiorina, even Christie minus bridgegate doing decent against Clinton.

I don't see a way Cruz or Carson could have lost against Hillary. Both are remarkably clean, when compared to Trump and Hillary. As I always said, any republican candidate would have beaten Hillary. She has had a near decade of campaigning against her and running for a very unlikely 3rd consecutive term by the same party. You can spit outside your window and if you hit anyone, odds are you would hit someone who would have beaten Hillary. As long as it's not Trump walking by your window... A 30 year old joke and con man, whose nomination is the closest US has gotten to a Plutacracy...

[DeadmanWalking]

It only takes one person to initiate it. It takes 2 people to fist fight but only one to throw the first punch, and we call that the aggressor.

Just get over yourself, stop trying to win the internet and stop justifying everything you do as the ultimate good. K? Good. You are not always right and you are not always the good guy. This is the internet, nobody cares who threw the first punch and how you think you are the ultimate good because everyone thinks they are the ultimate good.

[LaserSharkDFB]

I dont think you have a complete grasp of time....
or you are just sorely biased and refuse to acknowledge earlier statements

The only two Trump statements before the war were the Stern interview, where he gave tepid approval, and the first Cavuto interview, where he was completely ambivalent ("Either you attack or you don’t attack.") He seemed to prefer attacking to talking about attacking. So, on the whole, my grasp of time seems fine. How's yours?

I don't see how it was hard to follow...

Yeah. I know. That's the problem, really.