Debate: Round I - 26 Sept 20:00 EST on Fox

[IDBillzFan]

Said it before, but I'm in California. My vote in the presidential election means nothing.

 

And I really mean nothing. I mean, think about a post by baskin or ...lybob. THAT kind of nothing. Think about the amount of thoughtfulness and compassion you see in an Ozy post. THAT kind of nothing.

[ExiledInIllinois]

 

Sometimes you just gotta tank the season! Mediocrity kills. Do you want another 7-9 season?

[Deranged Rhino]

 

Are you saying that it's the rebels who are bombing Aleppo into oblivion?

 

You're smart enough to know that's not what I'm saying after I've told you several times that's not what I'm saying. But I get it. You got nothing on this topic because you know it's a **** show.

 

You still have no answer for the US funding, training, sharing intelligence with ISIS in Syria while decrying them as the singular reason we need to forfeit or rights to privacy, due process, speech, the right to bear arms, et al. You also never answered what the mission in Syria really is or why we're there other than spewing nonsense about wishing a better life for the Syrian people....

 

None of this is surprising considering you're still wrapping yourself in a philosophy that's been a proven failure at making people's lives better and the world more stable and has been a proven winner at upping war profiteering, forgiving us for blatant war crimes, and bringing us closer to a shooting war with the largest nuclear power in the world.

[Dr. K]

 

2004: Bush

2008: 3rd Party (no way I was voting for one of the two major parties, not after what Pelosi and the House Republicans tried to do to the world economy.)

2012: Romney.

 

This election...voting for Trump, because they're both disasters in the making, so may as well go for max destruction.

Interesting.

 

My guess was that most of the "leaning independent" voters in this election would be people who, if they ever had voted for one of the major parties, had voted for Republican presidential candidates, or if they had ever voted for a Democrat it was a long time ago.

 

Just for the record:

 

2000: Gore

2004: Kerry

2008: Obama

2012: Obama

 

Yes, I'm a liberal. Peace.

Edited September 27, 2016 by Dr. K

[GG]

 

You're smart enough to know that's not what I'm saying after I've told you several times that's not what I'm saying. But I get it. You got nothing on this topic because you know it's a **** show.

 

You still have no answer for the US funding, training, sharing intelligence with ISIS in Syria while decrying them as the singular reason we need to forfeit or rights to privacy, due process, speech, the right to bear arms, et al. You also never answered what the mission in Syria really is or why we're there other than spewing nonsense about wishing a better life for the Syrian people....

 

None of this is surprising considering you're still wrapping yourself in a philosophy that's been a proven failure at making people's lives better and the world more stable and has been a proven winner at upping war profiteering, forgiving us for blatant war crimes, and bringing us closer to a shooting war with the largest nuclear power in the world.

So we're supposed to accept your editorial license that US is in bed with ISIS because of tangential relationships in the Byzantine alliances of the warring tribes.

 

For someone who totally disavows conspiracy theories you certainly do a wonderful job of propagating them, apparently without accepting them.

 

And I don't know how many times it needs to be pointed out that there's no such thing as war profiteering, especially in a Syrian backwater.

 

If there was unlimited profits in war, then US would do what TYTT suggests. Build a battleship a month, sink it and start over.

[Deranged Rhino]

So we're supposed to accept your editorial license that US is in bed with ISIS because of tangential relationships in the Byzantine alliances of the warring tribes.

 

 

No, you should accept the reality which is verified and reported on in many, many, many reputable sources.

 

Are you really going to argue the US isn't funding Al-Qaeda and ISIS fighters in Syria?

 

Because if you are, you're wrong and have been propagandized to the max and it should completely disqualify you from having a serious opinion on the situation there. After all, if you don't know what's actually happening then chances are your opinion on that issue is fundamentally flawed.

 

And I don't know how many times it needs to be pointed out that there's no such thing as war profiteering, especially in a Syrian backwater.

 

 

Exxon and Chevron say hi. Wasn't it you who linked the map of the pipelines in Syria as the reason we're there?

 

There's no war profiteering.

 

How many billions in arms sales has the US made in Obama's two terms? That's right, more than any other administration since WW2.

 

Again, your world view is outdated and full of blatantly false information. Open your eyes and look at what is actually happening:

 

-We are in bed with ISIS in Syria because they're our proxy army against the Russians.

 

-We are in bed with the Saudis in Yemen because they're our proxy army against Iran.

 

-Both of those groups (the Saudis and ISIS) fund and are responsible for more terrorist activity than Hamas/Iran has been over the past decade -- yet we support them (not openly of course) because it's more important to keep the endless cycle of wars going in the ME than it is to find actual solutions and stability.

 

-Worse, while we are actively supporting, arming, funding, training and sharing intelligence with ISIS fighters our same government uses ISIS as the boogeyman to push through draconian reforms to our constitutional rights under the guise of protecting us from the very group they're funding and supporting!

 

It's all theater. And we're all being had. This isn't even being done in the shadows, it's out there for you to read about.

 

Like I've said in an earlier post that you continue to ignore because you know you've got nothing on this issue other than whataboutisms, outside of the countless mainstream reports that verify what I'm saying, try talking to some special operators or intelligence contractors who've been on the ground in Syria. Ask them what they think is going on and they'll all tell you the same thing: THE MISSION STINKS. We're helping jihadists take out a bad guy so we can replace him with a worse guy.

 

It's madness. But it's making some folks very, very, VERY rich in the process so I guess it's okay.

 

If there was unlimited profits in war, then US would do what TYTT suggests. Build a battleship a month, sink it and start over.

 

And yet that's exactly what our policy in the ME has been. We sunk Iraq (twice), rebuilt it (once) and then sunk it again. We're doing the same in Syria and Libya. Lather, rinse, repeat.

 

So, you're wrong. On nearly every aspect of this conversation.

[Prickly Pete]

Interesting.

 

My guess was that most of the "leaning independent" voters in this election would be people who, if they ever had voted for one of the major parties, had voted for Republican presidential candidates, or if they had ever voted for a Democrat it was a long time ago.

 

I have been a lifelong Democrat, from a long line of Democrats (some politicians, Civil Rights lawyers) and even though I think Trump is a blowhard douchebag, can easily see where Hillary will take the country.

 

First up, amnesty, and an increase in "refugee" immigration. That's lot's of Democratic voters (and they will be breeding at high rates). A big increase in social services, to provide for these new citizens. All paid for by the (mostly white) middle class. Of course she will talk about taxing the wealthy, but somehow that never works out. Never.

 

More of the de-stabilization of middle-eastern countries (and more refugees!). More culture clashes spreading throughout Europe, and now the US. Lot's more immigrants from countries beyond Mexico (but crossing at that border), riding the wave.

 

All will vote for the party that provides the more social services (Buffalo will be a great location for many, because it's cheap, and NY provides so many services). So it will either essentially be either a one party system, or 2 parties devoted to social services.

 

Then there will be lots of affirmative action style mandates, but this time for women (and multi-genders), and more for minorities. No doubt Hillary will do for gender relations, what Obama did for race relations.

 

Of course at the same, automation will eat up more jobs.

 

With fewer jobs, more unskilled people, higher taxes, there will be higher crime rates. So that will mean "we need more rules, and restrictions", which will mean more arrests, and selective enforcement.

 

The internet "hate speech" will be tied to terrorism, so there will be a push to rid the internet of anonymity. But who will decide what is "hate speech" and terrorism? Perfect time to use "selective enforcement".

 

With the influx of Muslims, I have no doubt that Black communities will be culled for new members, so give that a couple generations to stew.

 

I have heard rumbling about incarceration rates. To appease blacks, I can see more arrests and incarcerations of white folks, especially with the privatized prison system. $.

 

Cops will pretty much have to wear riot gear to give out speeding tickets, and "no go" zones will become more widespread.

 

Trump is a douche, and I don't know what he will do. But I know what Hillary is about, and these are just a few things I expect from her presidency.

Edited September 27, 2016 by HoF Watkins

[Doc]

 

I have been a lifelong Democrat, from a long line of Democrats (some politicians, Civil Rights lawyers) and even though I think Trump is a blowhard douchebag, can easily see where Hillary will take the country.

 

First up, amnesty, and an increase in "refugee" immigration. That's lot's of Democratic voters (and they will be breeding at high rates). A big increase in social services, to provide for these new citizens. All paid for by the (mostly white) middle class. Of course she will talk about taxing the wealthy, but somehow that never works out. Never.

 

More of the de-stabilization of middle-eastern countries (and more refugees!). More culture clashes spreading throughout Europe, and now the US. Lot's more immigrants from countries beyond Mexico (but crossing at that border), riding the wave.

 

All will vote for the party that provides the more social services (Buffalo will be a great location for many, because it's cheap, and NY provides so many services). So it will either essentially be either a one party system, or 2 parties devoted to social services.

 

Then there will be lots of affirmative action style mandates, but this time for women (and multi-genders), and more for minorities. No doubt Hillary will do for gender relations, what Obama did for race relations.

 

Of course at the same, automation will eat up more jobs.

 

With fewer jobs, more unskilled people, higher taxes, there will be higher crime rates. So that will mean "we need more rules, and restrictions", which will mean more arrests, and selective enforcement.

 

The internet "hate speech" will be tied to terrorism, so there will be a push to rid the internet of anonymity. But who will decide what is "hate speech" and terrorism? Perfect time to use "selective enforcement".

 

With the influx of Muslims, I have no doubt that Black communities will be culled for new members, so give that a couple generations to stew.

 

I have heard rumbling about incarceration rates. To appease blacks, I can see more arrests and incarcerations of white folks, especially with the privatized prison system. $.

 

Cops will pretty much have to wear riot gear to give out speeding tickets, and "no go" zones will become more widespread.

 

Trump is a douche, and I don't know what he will do. But I know what Hillary is about, and these are just a few things I expect from her presidency.

 

Congrats. Your eyes have been opened, like mine were about 7 years ago.

[GG]

 

No, you should accept the reality which is verified and reported on in many, many, many reputable sources.

 

Are you really going to argue the US isn't funding Al-Qaeda and ISIS fighters in Syria?

 

Because if you are, you're wrong and have been propagandized to the max and it should completely disqualify you from having a serious opinion on the situation there. After all, if you don't know what's actually happening then chances are your opinion on that issue is fundamentally flawed.

 

 

Exxon and Chevron say hi. Wasn't it you who linked the map of the pipelines in Syria as the reason we're there?

 

There's no war profiteering.

 

How many billions in arms sales has the US made in Obama's two terms? That's right, more than any other administration since WW2.

 

Again, your world view is outdated and full of blatantly false information. Open your eyes and look at what is actually happening:

 

-We are in bed with ISIS in Syria because they're our proxy army against the Russians.

 

-We are in bed with the Saudis in Yemen because they're our proxy army against Iran.

 

-Both of those groups (the Saudis and ISIS) fund and are responsible for more terrorist activity than Hamas/Iran has been over the past decade -- yet we support them (not openly of course) because it's more important to keep the endless cycle of wars going in the ME than it is to find actual solutions and stability.

 

-Worse, while we are actively supporting, arming, funding, training and sharing intelligence with ISIS fighters our same government uses ISIS as the boogeyman to push through draconian reforms to our constitutional rights under the guise of protecting us from the very group they're funding and supporting!

 

It's all theater. And we're all being had. This isn't even being done in the shadows, it's out there for you to read about.

 

Like I've said in an earlier post that you continue to ignore because you know you've got nothing on this issue other than whataboutisms, outside of the countless mainstream reports that verify what I'm saying, try talking to some special operators or intelligence contractors who've been on the ground in Syria. Ask them what they think is going on and they'll all tell you the same thing: THE MISSION STINKS. We're helping jihadists take out a bad guy so we can replace him with a worse guy.

 

It's madness. But it's making some folks very, very, VERY rich in the process so I guess it's okay.

 

 

And yet that's exactly what our policy in the ME has been. We sunk Iraq (twice), rebuilt it (once) and then sunk it again. We're doing the same in Syria and Libya. Lather, rinse, repeat.

 

So, you're wrong. On nearly every aspect of this conversation.

All this shows is that you can't separate a symptom from the cause, so in your view now that Obama administration finally realized how they screwed the pooch in their first term, they are trying to salvage whatever ground they can gain.

 

I'm not going to go down your rabbit hole, because the current mess is largely due to the complete screw up of Mid East policies in the last eight years.

 

US always was in bed with unsavory characters in the region, but at least there was consistency. US had answers sided with Saudis, despite their history. So how does your theory that it's propping up the Kingdom at all costs with the approach to normalize relations with Iran?

 

It doesn't get more schizophrenic than that. So I'm not going to defend the current policy.

 

But I will continue to call out your stupidity on thinking this is all about individual company profiteering, especially with a weak kneed liberal inn the White house who's done everything in his power to kill off the fossil fuel industry.

 

And again, look at the profits. US companies make way more money at peace than they do at war. Nobody at war will buy a $700 iPhone.

[Prickly Pete]

 

Congrats. Your eyes have been opened, like mine were about 7 years ago.

 

I left out so much, but had to pick up my kid from school.

 

Brazil, is where it's all going, basically. I can't believe it isn't obvious to every voter. I completely understand why Latinos and Blacks will vote for Hillary, but they won't realize until it's too late, that it will end up bringing virtually everyone in the country's standard of living down. Way down.

 

Home ownership, building standards, education. The new HUD program subsidizing housing in higher income neighborhoods...I wonder how much of that will go to new immigrants, and will it be directed to Republican areas to change their demographics? Hmmm...

 

 

I wanted to like Trump last night, but he really is a douche. I am hoping he can get in, bumble through 4 years (congress won't pass any of his proposals anyway, Bipartisan voting finally!), and then someone worthy rises up. But really, even if Trump gets in, and doesn't blow it, there seems to be no way to avert dystopia.

Edited September 27, 2016 by HoF Watkins

[drinkTHEkoolaid]

 

I have been a lifelong Democrat, from a long line of Democrats (some politicians, Civil Rights lawyers) and even though I think Trump is a blowhard douchebag, can easily see where Hillary will take the country.

 

First up, amnesty, and an increase in "refugee" immigration. That's lot's of Democratic voters (and they will be breeding at high rates). A big increase in social services, to provide for these new citizens. All paid for by the (mostly white) middle class. Of course she will talk about taxing the wealthy, but somehow that never works out. Never.

 

More of the de-stabilization of middle-eastern countries (and more refugees!). More culture clashes spreading throughout Europe, and now the US. Lot's more immigrants from countries beyond Mexico (but crossing at that border), riding the wave.

 

All will vote for the party that provides the more social services (Buffalo will be a great location for many, because it's cheap, and NY provides so many services). So it will either essentially be either a one party system, or 2 parties devoted to social services.

 

Then there will be lots of affirmative action style mandates, but this time for women (and multi-genders), and more for minorities. No doubt Hillary will do for gender relations, what Obama did for race relations.

 

Of course at the same, automation will eat up more jobs.

 

With fewer jobs, more unskilled people, higher taxes, there will be higher crime rates. So that will mean "we need more rules, and restrictions", which will mean more arrests, and selective enforcement.

 

The internet "hate speech" will be tied to terrorism, so there will be a push to rid the internet of anonymity. But who will decide what is "hate speech" and terrorism? Perfect time to use "selective enforcement".

 

With the influx of Muslims, I have no doubt that Black communities will be culled for new members, so give that a couple generations to stew.

 

I have heard rumbling about incarceration rates. To appease blacks, I can see more arrests and incarcerations of white folks, especially with the privatized prison system. $.

 

Cops will pretty much have to wear riot gear to give out speeding tickets, and "no go" zones will become more widespread.

 

Trump is a douche, and I don't know what he will do. But I know what Hillary is about, and these are just a few things I expect from her presidency.

Bravo. Welcome to the club

 

If you don't mind me asking was there any one specific thing that opened your eyes?

 

Just curious what worked for you to hopefully get through to others I know who aren't bad peoe but are brainwashed progressives.

[snafu]

Will they have replays of the debate on NFL Network?

 

(What am I doing in this part of TBD?...I think I'm lost)

Channeling your inner Admiral Stockdale?

[B-Man]

Holt’s Assist to Hillary

 

It turns out that working the refs is an effective strategy. Hillary Clinton glided through the first of the season’s three presidential debates on Monday night, thanks in no small part to moderator Lester Holt, who spent pretty much the entirety of his evening clearing Secretary Clinton’s way.

 

If Holt didn’t rappel into the debate Candy Crowley–style, it was because he didn’t need to. Antagonistic questions were directed toward one candidate and one candidate only. Donald Trump was asked about his tax returns, his role in promoting the birther controversy, whether he flip-flopped on the Iraq War, and what he meant when he said recently that Clinton does not have a “presidential look.” Clinton, by contrast, was not asked about her private e-mail server, the Clinton Foundation, Benghazi, or any one of the many topics about which voters have rightly expressed concerns. Instead, she was asked open-ended policy questions and permitted to dilate about renewable energy and the sundry misdeeds of George W. Bush.

 

The institutional slant of the media being what it is, the Republican nominee is always at a disadvantage when it comes to debate moderators, and should prepare accordingly. It was clear from his performance last night that Trump did not adequately prepare for what were entirely predictable lines of questioning; he also missed several opportunities to go on the offensive against a uniquely vulnerable opponent. Nonetheless, it’s not the job of the moderator to give either candidate a leg up; in fact, it’s the moderator’s job to do the opposite.

 

Unfortunately, Holt’s performance is the result of growing pressures in liberal media and political circles to treat Donald Trump as a candidate beyond the pale of public life, to deny him legitimacy as a presidential contender. We have our criticisms of Donald Trump, too. But his electoral fate should be up to the voters, not Lester Holt and his colleagues.

 

Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/440468/hillary-clintons-debate-performance-had-help-lester-holt

[Prickly Pete]

Bravo. Welcome to the club

 

If you don't mind me asking was there any one specific thing that opened your eyes?

 

Just curious what worked for you to hopefully get through to others I know who aren't bad peoe but are brainwashed progressives.

 

I mentioned awhile back, that the "Clockboy Scandal" opened my eyes to the strange attitudes of Progessives/SJW's. It was obvious that the kid was pranking the school, but among my peers there was no room to even question it without being called a racist.

 

From there, the refugee crisis in Europe, and the suppression and censorship of information, completely convinced me that there was something insidious happening. I recall that after the Boston Marathon Bombing, the identities of the bombers, and the fact that they were Muslim's was immediately made available. Sometime after that, it all changed. Now in Europe they do everything to evade naming a Muslim as a terrorist. And in the US it is nearly the same. The media is involved (when all those news agencies used the word "dark" in their headlines to describe Trump's DNC speech...I don't know how anyone can deny collusion).

 

I have been forced to plead the case for Trump, and I find that most people have very little knowledge of what's happened in Europe. Unless it's a hundred people getting run over, they don't know. Almost no one has heard about the Rotherham sex slave ring. When I tell them the situation, and show them videos, it seems to have an effect.

 

Europe is further along in the process, so it's helpful to demonstrate where things seem to be headed.

 

It's bizarre to me that the discussion of WHY we need to bring large numbers of Muslim immigrants into the US isn't really discussed. The argument about whether they SHOULD be allowed in, has turned into "we have Muslim's ready right now to bring over, and defeat the racists".

 

Glossing over the fact that Hillary Clinton has been directly involved in creating the refugee crisis, I'm all for helping the refugees, just not giving them a home and citizenship in the US.

 

It's completely counter-intuitive.

Edited September 28, 2016 by HoF Watkins

[Benjamin Franklin]

 

Bahahahaha! Wait, aren't you voting for "duh, what is Aleppo?"

 

 

 

I brought up the Johnson-Aleppo reference 2x already in this thread.

 

I can see how you fit in the with Trump supporters.

[Prickly Pete]

 

I brought up the Johnson-Aleppo reference 2x already in this thread.

 

I can see how you fit in the with Trump supporters.

 

So Ben, what do YOU see happening with a Hillary Presidency?

 

I get it, you don't like Trump, and feel most (all?) of his supporters are racists, but what do you see in his alternative, Hillary?

Edited September 28, 2016 by HoF Watkins

[Benjamin Franklin]

 

So Ben, what do YOU see happening with a Hillary Presidency?

 

Obama years 9-12.

 

Hawkish, semi-liberal. Friend to both Wall Street and big government.

[DC Tom]

 

Obama years 9-12.

 

Hawkish, semi-liberal. Friend to both Wall Street and big government.

 

9-16. Republican Party is pretty much dead after this election.

 

Hell, I wouldn't be surprised if a Democratic government outlawed it as a hate group.

[Prickly Pete]

 

Obama years 9-12.

 

Hawkish, semi-liberal. Friend to both Wall Street and big government.

 

There is no way with amnesty for (11 million?) illegal aliens, millions of (1,2...5?) new Muslims, and the current state of race relations, that it's just going to be that simple, and "business as usual". How do you think these situations will evolve under Hillary?

Edited September 28, 2016 by HoF Watkins

[IDBillzFan]

 

Obama years 9-12.

 

Except with critics being labled as "sexists" instead of "racists." I look forward to the change of pace.

 

Not to mention, who knows HOW much money she'll be able to launder through the Clinton Foundation as POTUS. Hell, she pushed uranium to Russia for a fewmillion shekels just while acting as SoS, so being POTUS will be very lucrative.