Presidential Candidates Debate

[iacas]

On 10/1/2016 at 11:46 AM, saevel25 said:

She did a good job deflecting him. The positions she's held have very little individual power where she alone could make drastic changes. His arguement is weak there. 

I don't think it's as weak as you want to believe. Her husband was the POTUS for eight years. She was Secretary of State. She's been in pretty high positions. She's a career politician.

9 hours ago, David in FL said:

Sorry, but I never once said that a vote for a 3d party candidate is "the same" as a vote for Hillary.  In fact, I took great care to avoid saying that.

I didn't say that either, so… ?

You've said voting third party is the same as not voting at all. That's incorrect on many levels.

[David in FL]

52 minutes ago, iacas said:

 

I didn't say that either, so… ?

You've said voting third party is the same as not voting at all. That's incorrect on many levels.

I know you didn't say it, but you said that I was wrong, and linked to an article "proving" that a vote for a 3d party candidate is not the same as a vote for Hillary.  You either mistakenly  thought that I said that a vote for a 3d party is the same as a vote for Hillary, or you simply linked to an irrelevant article.

I also said that "The fact of the matter remains.  In the general election, a vote for anyone other than either of the 2 main candidates has the same impact as not voting at all."  In the context of the discussion we were having, that of a single voter, it's absolutely correct, on any level.  

I chose my words carefully, and stand by them.

[drmevo]

51 minutes ago, iacas said:

I don't think it's as weak as you want to believe. Her husband was the POTUS for eight years. She was Secretary of State. She's been in pretty high positions. She's a career politician.

I dunno, I think the position of First Lady is pretty weak, realistically. It's not like she had any power over legislation or anything. What was she supposed to do? How should she have tackled major issues as SoS?

[David in FL]

3 minutes ago, drmevo said:

I dunno, I think the position of First Lady is pretty weak, realistically. It's not like she had any power over legislation or anything. What was she supposed to do? How should she have tackled major issues as SoS?

There's also that little stint as a U.S. Senator....

[rkim291968]

Both candidates are promising the moon but that's fully expected.  I highly doubt if they can make 5% of what they promise to come true in the next 4 years.   Trump's promises are just that, promises.  Clinton won't have any power or even a leverage if Dems cannot win the senate.   

[iacas]

28 minutes ago, David in FL said:

I know you didn't say it, but you said that I was wrong, and linked to an article "proving" that a vote for a 3d party candidate is not the same as a vote for Hillary.  You either mistakenly  thought that I said that a vote for a 3d party is the same as a vote for Hillary, or you simply linked to an irrelevant article.

I also said that "The fact of the matter remains.  In the general election, a vote for anyone other than either of the 2 main candidates has the same impact as not voting at all."  In the context of the discussion we were having, that of a single voter, it's absolutely correct, on any level.  

I chose my words carefully, and stand by them.

It doesn't have the same impact. And elections don't exist as single voter things.

You're wrong that I mistook what you said too. You're reading too much into the one article I chose to link to.

Voting for a third party has an impact. Particularly if the absence of an agreeable third party means you'd vote for one of the two main people.

[AbsoluteTruths]

I was going to watch the debate like someone wants to see a train wreck. I turned it on a couple times but I could not stand it.

I have heard that all but about 3 to 4 percent have already made up their minds on who they will vote for so the debates are useless. I think it may be about 3 or 4 people not percent

[drmevo]

33 minutes ago, David in FL said:

There's also that little stint as a U.S. Senator....

Right, I can see an argument there. Not as much for the specific positions @iacas referenced. 

[rkim291968]

Trump is still saying he won the debate by a large margin.  

[Elmer]

5 hours ago, rkim291968 said:

Trump is still saying he won the debate by a large margin.  

If he wasnt given that faulty mic on purpose, he would have!

[iacas]

12 hours ago, drmevo said:

Right, I can see an argument there. Not as much for the specific positions @iacas referenced. 

You don't think the Secretary of State is pretty high up in the decision-making chain? She was fourth in the order of succession.

That she was also a senator goes without saying, too. She's been a politician for a long time. When he says that, it carries some weight/has some merit.

[Elmer]

Dont know if anyone saw the SNL spoof, some funny interpretations.
 

Or

 

Edited October 3, 2016 by Elmer

[Golfingdad]

25 minutes ago, iacas said:

You don't think the Secretary of State is pretty high up in the decision-making chain? She was fourth in the order of succession.

That she was also a senator goes without saying, too. She's been a politician for a long time. When he says that, it carries some weight/has some merit.

What I don't understand is how/why so many people would consider that a negative.

Pretty much every possible profession out there, people would unanimously consider experience as vital to their ability to handle the job, but somehow when we get to (one of) the most important job(s) in the country, people think that less experience is better.  And no experience is best.

[newtogolf]

27 minutes ago, Golfingdad said:

What I don't understand is how/why so many people would consider that a negative.

Pretty much every possible profession out there, people would unanimously consider experience as vital to their ability to handle the job, but somehow when we get to (one of) the most important job(s) in the country, people think that less experience is better.  And no experience is best.

Because it's as Trump said, "bad experience".  In 26 years of politics she's been unable to fix any of the problems she now claims qualified to fix, she actually helped create some of these problems.  

If a plumber was in business for 26 years and couldn't clear a clogged drain would you hire that plumber because they were experienced?  

Democrats seem to forget all the negative things Obama said about Clinton when they ran head to head and it seems the majority of you agreed that all of Hillary's experience wasn't important enough to nominate her over Obama (who had very little experience in comparison).  

All those reasons Democrats nominated Obama over Hillary seem to be forgotten and now eight years later Hillary has done nothing to demonstrate greater competence for the job, in fact between Benghazi, her e-mails, her questionable acts as SoS selling her time for campaign donations and mishandling classified information, she is even less qualified.  

[drmevo]

1 hour ago, iacas said:

You don't think the Secretary of State is pretty high up in the decision-making chain? She was fourth in the order of succession.

It's a powerful position, yes. But the context of Trump's comment on her "doing this for 30 years" was related to jobs I believe, and fighting ISIS. So, what should she have done to promote jobs and fight ISIS as SoS?  Not saying she couldn't have done anything on those fronts, but other than improved trade agreements (by the way, most experts agree Trump's trade proposals would be disastrous for the economy), what, really? 

[Elmer]

6 minutes ago, newtogolf said:

Because it's as Trump said, "bad experience".  In 26 years of politics she's been unable to fix any of the problems she now claims qualified to fix, she actually helped create some of these problems.  

If a plumber was in business for 26 years and couldn't clear a clogged drain would you hire that plumber because they were experienced?  

Democrats seem to forget all the negative things Obama said about Clinton when they ran head to head and it seems the majority of you agreed that all of Hillary's experience wasn't important enough to nominate her over Obama (who had very little experience in comparison).  

All those reasons Democrats nominated Obama over Hillary seem to be forgotten and now eight years later Hillary has done nothing to demonstrate greater competence for the job, in fact between Benghazi, her e-mails, her questionable acts as SoS selling her time for campaign donations and mishandling classified information, she is even less qualified.  

But using Trump's own logic, 
DT himself has lost millions, declared bankruptcy and is unable to prove he is successful!

Yet he expects us to blindly believe only he can beat ISIS!
(maybe he will open a casino hire ISIS, declare bankruptcy and fire all of them. That will defeat them)

[nevets88]

It looks like the NYT's tax piece is going to have some influence (you think?) in the next debate and the election, surprised no one talking about it, probably because of the weekend/Friday news dump release date.

[newtogolf]

21 minutes ago, Elmer said:

But using Trump's own logic, 
DT himself has lost millions, declared bankruptcy and is unable to prove he is successful!

Yet he expects us to blindly believe only he can beat ISIS!
(maybe he will open a casino hire ISIS, declare bankruptcy and fire all of them. That will defeat them)

Look, I'm not going to defend Trump.  I'm voting for him because I'll never vote for Hillary.  

That said, many CEO's have filed bankruptcy in businesses that have failed.  Are you going to say Bill Gates is an incompetent business person because he filed Chapter 7 on Optim energy, how about Walt Disney, H.J. Heinz, William Fox, Henry Ford, J.C. Penny, Sam Walton and Charles Schwab, all filed for bankruptcy during their careers?

This idea that Trump is a lousy business person based on filing bankruptcy is over stated.  Bankruptcy is a tool businesses are provided by the Government, if you want to blame someone for Trump's bankruptcies and the amount of money he's paid in taxes, blame the government, he and other business owners / CEO's are simply using the laws provided to their benefit.  

As for ISIS, no one knows how to defeat ISIS, not Hillary, not Trump, so as far as I'm concerned they are both full of crap.