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

[Nanker]

She's made up like a Kewpie doll. She was wearing more eye makeup than Tammy Faye Bakker of Pocket The Loot fame.

[Benjamin Franklin]

Trump couldn't have been worse, it shoes how unprepared he is to lead this country. He let Hillary Clinton walk all over him then blamed it on his mic...

 

 

Doc says not to worry. Next time Trump is going to prepare like it matters and bring it.

She's made up like a Kewpie doll. She was wearing more eye makeup than Tammy Faye Bakker of Pocket The Loot fame.

 

Really? Your guy got smoked in the debate and this is all you got left? Was the "cankles" meme taken today?

Edited September 28, 2016 by Benjamin Franklin

[Cugalabanza]

She's made up like a Kewpie doll. She was wearing more eye makeup than Tammy Faye Bakker of Pocket The Loot fame.

I know! It's ridiculous. Who the hell does she think she is? She was wearing almost as much makeup as Trump!

[DC Tom]

She's made up like a Kewpie doll. She was wearing more eye makeup than Tammy Faye Bakker of Pocket The Loot fame.

 

God forbid anyone ever wear pancake makeup on TV. She should follow Nixon's lead in 1960, and look like a three-day corpse.

[Nanker]

 

Doc says not to worry. Next time Trump is going to prepare like it matters and bring it.

 

Really? Your guy got smoked in the debate and this is all you got left? Was the "cankles" meme taken today?

My guy? MY guy? Go fu ck yourself and take piano legs with you. You going to show up at a tailgate and call my wife ugly?

 

I know! It's ridiculous. Who the hell does she think she is? She was wearing almost as much makeup as Trump!

Really sweet Gringo. Trump's made fun of for his hair all the time. Just call me a misogynist and be done with it. I know, a

 

 

God forbid anyone ever wear pancake makeup on TV. She should follow Nixon's lead in 1960, and look like a three-day corpse.

She already tried that look. It didn't do well in the focus groups.

 

ny mention of her oven mitt wardrobe or makeup is sexist.

Edited September 28, 2016 by Nanker

[Dr. K]

 

He wasn't good. He should have just yada yada-ed, but he can't help himself.

 

I don't agree that things will just continue as is. There is a coordinated effort to bring Muslim's into Western Society. It's not working, and is pushing the citizens in these countries to support the Far-Right. It's not just going to go away.

Paranoid much? Your scenario for what happens if Clinton is elected is like a cheap dystopian novel. All you left out was the Antichrist and the Rapture.

 

Plus, there is no apostrophe in a simple plural word. "Muslims," not "Muslim's" Sheesh.

[ExiledInIllinois]

Trump couldn't have been worse, it shoes how unprepared he is to lead this country. He let Hillary Clinton walk all over him then blamed it on his mic...

I am sorry but what Mexicans have you ever met? I don't think you ever even spoke to one in real life... The problem with voting is they let people like you do it.

He flip flops on everthing... And his sheeple still follow him simply of their blind hate for Hilly. Ok, blind because she hung some out to dry. Wait till The Donald is Prez, it will be pure gold when he hangs his conservative sheeple, that decided to vote for him because he is the "lesser of two evils", out to dry and swinging in the breeze.

 

He's the ultimate politician, ultimate demagogue. Nothing can stick to him. He's pure teflon.

Edited September 28, 2016 by ExiledInIllinois

[Deranged Rhino]

All this shows is that you can't separate a symptom from the cause...

 

That's not true. I've been talking about the cause: we're fighting a war we shouldn't be involved in because we have financial interests in the area. And by we I don't mean the US people or government, I mean Exxon and Chevron.

 

You, on the other hand, just keep taking shots, running away when challenged to support your whataboutisms, and then put it all off on either Putin or Assad as if the choice is binary. You're way off base in this area and your argument changes by the day. One day we're there for the pipelines, next day we're there to make people's lives better, next day we are there because Putin committed a war crime and Assad is a monster -- all the while you never address our own actions and !@#$ ups there because questioning our own actions to you is supporting Russia or Syria.

 

That's hot garbage. Binary thinking in this age on the geopolitical level is about as outdated and irrelevant as my own career. You're better than that.

 

And, you don't have to go down a rabbit hole to answer the question you've been dodging since the cease fire was broken by US forces: What was the best case scenario for the intentional bombing of Syrian troops during a cease fire by US forces coordinating with ISIS fighters on the ground?

 

I'd say the best case scenario is what happened -- they weakened Assad's forces while helping ISIS retake a foothold they had lost, they shredded the cease fire which was keeping Assad in power, and they haven't been held accountable for any of it.

 

Now, what's the worst case scenario? Oh, right, World War Three. Considering those two possible outcomes, how is a 4 hour "accidental" bombing of Syrian troops anything other than the US looking to provoke a fight? What do they possible gain from it? Replacing Assad with either an Al-Qaeda proxy or an ISIS proxy so Exxon and Chevron can protect their profit margins? Brilliant.

 

How the hell is that a policy you can support -- and refusing to criticize those policies or our hold our government accountable for its crimes while bashing those who do as being Putin supporters is indeed tacit support of the action and the entire mission in Syria.

 

So, you say you're not going to support 44's policy in the ME and yet you won't question it either. That's not fence sitting, that's just cowardice.

I know! It's ridiculous. Who the hell does she think she is? She was wearing almost as much makeup as Trump!

Edited September 28, 2016 by Deranged Rhino

[ExiledInIllinois]

Paranoid much? Your scenario for what happens if Clinton is elected is like a cheap dystopian novel. All you left out was the Antichrist and the Rapture.

 

Plus, there is no apostrophe in a simple plural word. "Muslims," not "Muslim's" Sheesh.

The radical Muslims would want nothing more than have someone tough on them, bring the fight at them rather than "turn the other cheek" while promoting a liberal world. Promoting liberty is the only way to defeat this problem. They would want nothing more than an American society that moves more conservative socially. It gives them a fight they want while tightening up liberty on us.

 

There is a way to stamp it out and it isn't fire w/fire as the main combative techinque fighting the Radical Islam problem the world is enduring.

 

Time to stomach up people.

[grinreaper]

The radical Muslims would want nothing more than have someone tough on them, bring the fight at them rather than "turn the other cheek" while promoting a liberal world. Promoting liberty is the only way to defeat this problem. They would want nothing more than an American society that moves more conservative socially. It gives them a fight they want while tightening up liberty on us.

 

There is a way to stamp it out and it isn't fire w/fire as the main combative techinque fighting the Radical Islam problem the world is enduring.

 

Time to stomach up people.

You truly do make it flow backwards. What are you sticking up your ass for so much schit coming out of your mouth?

[ExiledInIllinois]

You truly do make it flow backwards. What are you sticking up your ass for so much schit coming out of your mouth?

Hate if you want... Just agree to disagree. No need to be nasty. I threaten nobody but your tone seems to think I do. Are you scared? No need to be afraid.

[Prickly Pete]

Paranoid much? Your scenario for what happens if Clinton is elected is like a cheap dystopian novel. All you left out was the Antichrist and the Rapture.

 

Plus, there is no apostrophe in a simple plural word. "Muslims," not "Muslim's" Sheesh.

 

It's already unfolding in Europe.

 

(So sorry about the apostrophe. Sometimes I'm distracted by 3 young kids, or in a hurry, so my proofreading suffers. Thanks for "powering through").

 

 

Yes, I'm sure you are well-versed within the Latino community of what they generally want out of life.

 

I can find videos of virtually every single group, and find wacko extremists from within the right wing, left wing, African American's, Latino's, White's and what have you. That doesn't mean that's representative of each group. You are a right wing partisan, which means you get your news that helps prop up the right wing argument, which means they cherry pick certain bits of information to feed into their ignorant narrow views.

 

Left wing groups do the same thing. You guys are no different than one another in that you only propagate inaccurate views to help your push your narrow agenda's.

 

So you spare me your bull ****, because I see right through it. Unfortunately for you, you don't even know that you are just one of the many sheep that these disseminators of elephant **** have spoon fed you.

 

I have lived in LA for the last 20 years, my wife is Mexican, and our 3 kids are half-Mexican, my circle friends is over 50% Mexican, I spend nearly all my time with Mexicans, I love my wife's family (my family is in Buffalo), and I feel accepted. I also know how they feel about White America. They feel it is their land, and it was taken from them. And they feel any and all Mexicans should be able to live in the US. This is their sentiment, across the board.

Edited September 28, 2016 by HoF Watkins

[Nanker]

[B-Man]

In a change election where both candidates have historically high negative ratings, many voters could make their choice for secondary reasons.

 

Voting against the other candidate is the most likely option, while voting against the media as a proxy for voting against the establishment is emerging as another.

 

In that case, the news media could be more than part of the story. They could be the story.

 

A recent Gallup survey found a new low in public trust of the media, with only 32 percent of Americans saying they have a great deal or some trust in newspapers, TV and radio “to report the news fully, accurately and fairly.” Trust fell eight points in one year alone

 

 

 

People are dissatisfied with the way the country is going.........they certainly do not trust the political class in DC.

 

Trump, even as a loudmouth bore, is the change candidate.............and that alone is why Hillary and her media can't seal the deal.

 

 

.

[ExiledInIllinois]

In a change election where both candidates have historically high negative ratings, many voters could make their choice for secondary reasons.

 

Voting against the other candidate is the most likely option, while voting against the media as a proxy for voting against the establishment is emerging as another.

 

In that case, the news media could be more than part of the story. They could be the story.

 

A recent Gallup survey found a new low in public trust of the media, with only 32 percent of Americans saying they have a great deal or some trust in newspapers, TV and radio to report the news fully, accurately and fairly. Trust fell eight points in one year alone

 

 

 

People are dissatisfied with the way the country is going.........they certainly do not trust the political class in DC.

 

Trump, even as a loudmouth bore, is the change candidate.............and that alone is why Hillary and her media can't seal the deal.

 

 

.

Where were you in 2008 with this argument? I see you joined in 2011.

[B-Man]

Where were you in 2008 with this argument? I see you joined in 2011.

 

 

I was the same place that the "it doesn't matter if Barack has so little experience" people are today with Trump...........

 

 

Actually I am one of the cast-offs from the closed BBMB political board in 2011

Edited September 28, 2016 by B-Man

[GG]

 

That's not true. I've been talking about the cause: we're fighting a war we shouldn't be involved in because we have financial interests in the area. And by we I don't mean the US people or government, I mean Exxon and Chevron.

 

You, on the other hand, just keep taking shots, running away when challenged to support your whataboutisms, and then put it all off on either Putin or Assad as if the choice is binary. You're way off base in this area and your argument changes by the day. One day we're there for the pipelines, next day we're there to make people's lives better, next day we are there because Putin committed a war crime and Assad is a monster -- all the while you never address our own actions and !@#$ ups there because questioning our own actions to you is supporting Russia or Syria.

 

That's hot garbage. Binary thinking in this age on the geopolitical level is about as outdated and irrelevant as my own career. You're better than that.

 

And, you don't have to go down a rabbit hole to answer the question you've been dodging since the cease fire was broken by US forces: What was the best case scenario for the intentional bombing of Syrian troops during a cease fire by US forces coordinating with ISIS fighters on the ground?

 

I'd say the best case scenario is what happened -- they weakened Assad's forces while helping ISIS retake a foothold they had lost, they shredded the cease fire which was keeping Assad in power, and they haven't been held accountable for any of it.

 

Now, what's the worst case scenario? Oh, right, World War Three. Considering those two possible outcomes, how is a 4 hour "accidental" bombing of Syrian troops anything other than the US looking to provoke a fight? What do they possible gain from it? Replacing Assad with either an Al-Qaeda proxy or an ISIS proxy so Exxon and Chevron can protect their profit margins? Brilliant.

 

How the hell is that a policy you can support -- and refusing to criticize those policies or our hold our government accountable for its crimes while bashing those who do as being Putin supporters is indeed tacit support of the action and the entire mission in Syria.

 

So, you say you're not going to support 44's policy in the ME and yet you won't question it either. That's not fence sitting, that's just cowardice.

 

I'm beyond questioning Obama's foreign policy, because it's completely nonsensical. How many times do I need to repeat that he doesn't have a foreign policy, just jumping from one self imposed hot flash to another? Why would I need to question a policy that is totally irredeemable, totally idiotic and counterproductive to US interests? There's no questioning something that needs to be blown up and started fresh.

 

Chevron & Exxon? I know, you get it from your sources on the ground who are there at the behest of Big Oil. I don't imagine that you don't find any difference if the companies you're referring to might actually be Total, ENI or BP. It's all the same to you right.

 

Here's a question for you. If Obama is so intent on helping out the big US oil companies, wouldn't it be easier to allow more drilling on US soil or approving the Keystone pipeline, rather than risking US lives or as you say WW3 to help these companies? Why would Obama put US lives in danger to help these companies violate US sanctions on Syria? There are many basic questions for which you have no answer for, but at least we have replacements for the Halliburton bogeyman.

 

And, btw the pipeline maps that were referenced in other threads were in the Black Sea, not Syria. But, I imagine it all blends together for you.

[keepthefaith]

 

I have lived in LA for the last 20 years, my wife is Mexican, and our 3 kids are half-Mexican, my circle friends is over 50% Mexican, I spend nearly all my time with Mexicans, I love my wife's family (my family is in Buffalo), and I feel accepted. I also know how they feel about White America. They feel it is their land, and it was taken from them. And they feel any and all Mexicans should be able to live in the US. This is their sentiment, across the board.

 

And that sentiment is wrong. On this issue, both American political parties should be in lockstep on border security and orderly legal immigration except that one party sees it as the greatest voter registration program of all time.

 

I'm beyond questioning Obama's foreign policy, because it's completely nonsensical. How many times do I need to repeat that he doesn't have a foreign policy, just jumping from one self imposed hot flash to another? Why would I need to question a policy that is totally irredeemable, totally idiotic and counterproductive to US interests? There's no questioning something that needs to be blown up and started fresh.

 

Chevron & Exxon? I know, you get it from your sources on the ground who are there at the behest of Big Oil. I don't imagine that you don't find any difference if the companies you're referring to might actually be Total, ENI or BP. It's all the same to you right.

 

Here's a question for you. If Obama is so intent on helping out the big US oil companies, wouldn't it be easier to allow more drilling on US soil or approving the Keystone pipeline, rather than risking US lives or as you say WW3 to help these companies? Why would Obama put US lives in danger to help these companies violate US sanctions on Syria? There are many basic questions for which you have no answer for, but at least we have replacements for the Halliburton bogeyman.

 

And, btw the pipeline maps that were referenced in other threads were in the Black Sea, not Syria. But, I imagine it all blends together for you.

 

His foreign policy makes sense when you view it through his prism of non-whites and non-christians be oppressed. This is essentially at the root of every decision Obama makes IMO.

[DC Tom]

 

His foreign policy makes sense when you view it through his prism of non-whites and non-christians be oppressed. This is essentially at the root of every decision Obama makes IMO.

 

Only if you apply the a priori assumption of "he hates white and Christians" to every action, then ignore the vast amount of stupid **** he does that has nothing to do with whites or Christians.

[grinreaper]

Ah, another thread hijacked by two people who just can't agree on anything.