First Presidential Debate 9/26/16 Thread

  • Thread starter Thread starter gilliam
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Peter_Plato said:
She didn’t look “more informed.” She looked hypocritical and deceptive.

Sometimes it is best just to let the truth speak for itself.

Trump decided it was better to sell popcorn and innocently talk about his son while she hung herself on her own petard. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
So you feel it was a tactical move to just stay quiet and talk about his son?The same guy who interrupted about saying he was smart about the taxes, good at business when it came to the housing crisis, He could not refrain from repeating his criticisms of a young woman’s weight, 20 years after the fact, and buckling down and say she was the worst ever. The same guy who had to mention Rosie O’Donnell.

This fellow made a tactical move to not attack Hillary at her most vulnerable?

Ok. That seems right. Lol.
 
jtauke said:
Political insider is a far cry from having any power to change policy. Let’s be real.
Click to expand...
It’s Hillary who wore the pants (pant suits) in the political relationship with Bill, who was the charmer with political skill. Hillary served as a virtual co-president, steering and controlling public policy and making decisions in Waco, TX that would leave numerous people dead.
 
kat07 said:
It’s Hillary who wore the pants (pant suits) in the political relationship with Bill, who was the charmer with political skill. Hillary served as a virtual co-president, steering and controlling public policy and making decisions in Waco, TX that would leave numerous people dead.
Click to expand...
Physical evidence to support this?
 
jtauke said:
Political insider is a far cry from having any power to change policy. Let’s be real.
Click to expand...
You can’t be that politically naive, can you?

Political insiders have enormous power to change policy, they just do it surreptitiously precisely because they don’t want to make it very obvious to the public. It is far less controversial when relatively few people are aware of the influence.

George Soros is an example of an “insider” who you would claim has no “political power,” yet his impact has been hugely destructive to the Constitution.
 
kat07 said:
It’s Hillary who wore the pants (pant suits) in the political relationship with Bill, who was the charmer with political skill. Hillary served as a virtual co-president, steering and controlling public policy and making decisions in Waco, TX that would leave numerous people dead.
Click to expand...
Oh Hillary was in charge of Waco?
 
Mary_Gail_36 said:
I think Hillary was definitely stronger in substance in various places. One place, ironically, was cyber security. Her answer showed she understood what the vulnerabilities were and who were the possible culprits. His answer was a ramble that mentioned the cyber being vulnerable to China and Russia and fat guys. And his son is good at computers. How could he have not prepared an answer that showed that Hillary was actually careless when it came to cyber security? :confused:

The other part where Hillary dominated in substance is when NATO was discussed. He suggested that China take out North Korea, and that Japan needs to pony up more money to be protected. Treaties don’t matter I guess. And a nuclear war in Asia is fine I guess, because Honda makes good cars that do well in the US.

On Twitter both Karl Reiner and Rob Reiner participate. Obviously Rob Reiner is a Hollywood Liberal. One point he made is that Trump sounds a lot like Archie Bunker.
Click to expand...
Why he had to mention a 400 lb guy as a potential hacker was beyond me. What do you suppose it is with him and his obsession with other people’s weight? Once at a rally he said, you know, it’s amazing. I mention food stamps and that guy who’s seriously overweight went crazy. And of course all of his comments about women and weight and their appearances. I am not supporting him anyway for a variety of reasons. But I’ve dealt with weight struggles my entire life and I’m starting to think I maybe wouldn’t vote for the guy just due to his comments about overweight people alone now.
 
Peter_Plato said:
Which implies that she knew what she was doing when she used a private email server, destroyed devices and deleted thousands of emails.

So which story is correct?
  1. Her debate version: She is an expert on cyber security (with the implication that she uses that expertise to bury opponents, hide evidence, and sway public policy on behalf of wealthy clients.) Or…
  2. Her hearing version: She has no clue about cyber security (with the implication that she should not be trusted where national security issues are at stake because she is incompetent and forgetful.)
One version has to be false because they are logically contradictory.

Which would you suppose is true? Go ahead, pick your poison!

Either way, she is giving a misleading and false narrative.

By the way, she is being entirely deceptive on who were the “possible culprits.” Privately she knows who they were, publicly she tells a different story.
Click to expand...
And that goes back to Trump not taking her to task, something he will need to do in the second debate to capture the voters he needs.

She claims to be an expert in cyber security, but pretended to not be familiar with what wiping a hard drive meant. The implication being of course:
  1. She lacks the most basic knowledge of cyber security (frankly, the term is so much broader than these discussions so as to demean the entire field of CS) and doesn’t know something taught to first year Comp. Sci. students.
or
  1. She lied (again) when asked the question about it.
Which does CA think it is? Neither should be expected of a possible CINC.

This highlights my frustration with Trump. I could come up with hundreds of comebacks for this sort of discussion, and the one time he mentions her latest major scandal, he does so in what amounts to a quip, which doesn’t bring the gravitas to the discussion needed. He needs to do what she did (except do it on issues that rank high on people’s radar and not commentary on personal issues) and turn to her and ask her pointed questions that force her to answer or dodge. Her answers will not resonate, and if avoided, it makes a statement to viewers.

I am convinced this is Trump’s election to win or lose. Hillary is a well known quantity, and folks have long formed their opinions of her. She has certain votes locked in that will not change. By and large (IMO) I don’t think she will win many votes in these debates. Trump is the one who will win or lose votes. People are still looking to see if they can vote for Trump. He has a lot more control on this election than people give him credit for, but he needs to do a better job seizing it.
 
jtauke said:
Physical evidence to support this?
Click to expand...
The circumstantial evidence is piling up so high that it will be undeniable very soon. The problem is the covert nature of the evidence and how it is being buried by those with a great deal at stake. Fortunately, there are enough people now digging into the pile that the case(s) will be made more and more clear with time.

In the meantime, assuming a stance of staunch denial will be counterproductive. The ideal perspective is informed neutrality and letting the evidence speak for itself. If more people did that, less obstruction and obfuscation would get in the way.

The email scandal is exposing the tip of the iceberg, as are the workings of the Clinton Foundation. The unwillingness to be transparent in both cases is highly incriminating.
 
jtauke said:
Physical evidence to support this?
Click to expand...
Former Senator Arlen Specter who headed the Senate panel investigating Waco incident, has said to many, that credible testimony indicated Hillary gave the go order to Reno and Webbb Hubbell.
 
Maximilan_Kolbe said:
And that goes back to Trump not taking her to task, something he will need to do in the second debate to capture the voters he needs.

She claims to be an expert in cyber security, but pretended to not be familiar with what wiping a hard drive meant. The implication being of course:
  1. She lacks the most basic knowledge of cyber security (frankly, the term is so much broader than these discussions so as to demean the entire field of CS) and doesn’t know something taught to first year Comp. Sci. students.
or
  1. She lied (again) when asked the question about it.
Which does CA think it is? Neither should be expected of a possible CINC.

This highlights my frustration with Trump. I could come up with hundreds of comebacks for this sort of discussion, and the one time he mentions her latest major scandal, he does so in what amounts to a quip, which doesn’t bring the gravitas to the discussion needed. He needs to do what she did (except do it on issues that rank high on people’s radar and not commentary on personal issues) and turn to her and ask her pointed questions that force her to answer or dodge. Her answers will not resonate, and if avoided, it makes a statement to viewers.

I am convinced this is Trump’s election to win or lose. Hillary is a well known quantity, and folks have long formed their opinions of her. She has certain votes locked in that will not change. By and large (IMO) I don’t think she will win many votes in these debates. Trump is the one who will win or lose votes. People are still looking to see if they can vote for Trump. He has a lot more control on this election than people give him credit for, but he needs to do a better job seizing it.
Click to expand...
Oh, I fully agree with you. I think Trump did quite well for the first twenty minutes or so, but seemed to become discombobulated as time went on. I think he got the sense that Holt and Clinton were somehow tag-teaming him and his points were being undermined by how questions were asked or soft-balled over to Hillary to throw in the “zingers” she had planned. I think there is evidence of signaling between Holt and Clinton. I think Trump panicked because he expected a fair debate, but saw that it wouldn’t be that at all. That unraveled him towards the end. He did show his unwillingness to be unscrupulous at the end, which – to informed observers who were paying attention – was far more significant than Clinton showing she would continue to “play the game of politics” with absolutely NO restrictions.

Her gloating the next day was especially off-putting.
 
Journalist Howard Fineman has seen every presidential debate going back to 1960, and proclaimed Trump’s performance in the first debate as the worst ever. And the second debate is a town hall debate, with real people asking real questions, and moderators likely pressing the candidates for specifics to those questions. This does not bode well for Trump. Assuming he shows up, of course.
 
kat07 said:
Former Senator Arlen Specter who headed the Senate panel investigating Waco incident, has said to many, that credible testimony indicated Hillary gave the go order to Reno and Webbb Hubbell.
Click to expand...
You believe the First Lady has the authority to order federal agents? This smacks of conspiracy nonsense. Why would the FBI or ATF agent take orders from a first lady?

Can you produce a record of the testimony in questoin? I did a search for it, but wasn’t able to locate anything.
 
Mulligan2 said:
Journalist Howard Fineman has seen every presidential debate going back to 1960, and proclaimed Trump’s performance in the first debate as the worst ever. And the second debate is a town hall debate, with real people asking real questions, and moderators likely pressing the candidates for specifics to those questions. This does not bode well for Trump. Assuming he shows up, of course.
Click to expand...
LOL Howard Fineman is hardcore left wing! I wouldn’t put much stock in his opinion
 
Maximilan_Kolbe said:
And that goes back to Trump not taking her to task, something he will need to do in the second debate to capture the voters he needs.

She claims to be an expert in cyber security, but pretended to not be familiar with what wiping a hard drive meant. The implication being of course:
  1. She lacks the most basic knowledge of cyber security (frankly, the term is so much broader than these discussions so as to demean the entire field of CS) and doesn’t know something taught to first year Comp. Sci. students.
or
  1. She lied (again) when asked the question about it.
Which does CA think it is? Neither should be expected of a possible CINC.

This highlights my frustration with Trump. I could come up with hundreds of comebacks for this sort of discussion, and the one time he mentions her latest major scandal, he does so in what amounts to a quip, which doesn’t bring the gravitas to the discussion needed. He needs to do what she did (except do it on issues that rank high on people’s radar and not commentary on personal issues) and turn to her and ask her pointed questions that force her to answer or dodge. Her answers will not resonate, and if avoided, it makes a statement to viewers.

I am convinced this is Trump’s election to win or lose. Hillary is a well known quantity, and folks have long formed their opinions of her. She has certain votes locked in that will not change. By and large (IMO) I don’t think she will win many votes in these debates. Trump is the one who will win or lose votes. People are still looking to see if they can vote for Trump. He has a lot more control on this election than people give him credit for, but he needs to do a better job seizing it.
Click to expand...
exactly. just ask her if she is aware of bleachbit…

“you mean did I wipe it with a cloth?” she knows so little about computers-just e-mails remember? :rolleyes:
 
Peter_Plato said:
The circumstantial evidence is piling up so high that it will be undeniable very soon. The problem is the covert nature of the evidence and how it is being buried by those with a great deal at stake. Fortunately, there are enough people now digging into the pile that the case(s) will be made more and more clear with time.

In the meantime, assuming a stance of staunch denial will be counterproductive. The ideal perspective is informed neutrality and letting the evidence speak for itself. If more people did that, less obstruction and obfuscation would get in the way.

The email scandal is exposing the tip of the iceberg, as are the workings of the Clinton Foundation. The unwillingness to be transparent in both cases is highly incriminating.
Click to expand...
yep!
 
Sy_Noe said:
Why he had to mention a 400 lb guy as a potential hacker was beyond me. What do you suppose it is with him and his obsession with other people’s weight? Once at a rally he said, you know, it’s amazing. I mention food stamps and that guy who’s seriously overweight went crazy. And of course all of his comments about women and weight and their appearances. I am not supporting him anyway for a variety of reasons. But I’ve dealt with weight struggles my entire life and I’m starting to think I maybe wouldn’t vote for the guy just due to his comments about overweight people alone now.
Click to expand...
I was confused about the weight thing too-unless he hoped the insult would make the person come forward like how they try to shame a criminal so they will possibly make a mistake trying to prove themselves.
 
jtauke said:
Almost like someone not being transparent with their tax returns :D.
Click to expand...
I could really care less about the tax returns. what is more telling is that he seems to continually be under audit. is someone from the IRS out to get him like they have targeted so many others?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top