First Presidential Debate 9/26/16 Thread

  • Thread starter Thread starter gilliam
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Does anyone actually think polygraphs are credible? I mean really…

Most psychologists agree that there is little evidence that polygraph tests can accurately detect lies.

apa.org/research/action/polygraph.aspx
The point is, she knew he was guilty. And then says,
“Today I want to send a message to every survivor of sexual assault,” Clinton said. “Don’t let anyone silence your voice. You have the right to be heard. You have the right to be believed and we’re with you.” Clearly she doesn’t practice what she says.

Most defense lawyers don’t want their clients to tell them too much about their guilt. They don’t want to know, understandably.
 
A lot of people supported the war, and many still do. I don’t think that’s the real issue. To me, the real issue is the condition this administration left it in. Despite Hillary’s statement about it in the debate, the pullout was not mandated by Bush. A new status of forces agreement could have been made. Maliki and the Iraqi parliament were both willing, along with the Kurds, the Sunni tribal chiefs and Ayatollah Sistani, then the leader of most of the Shia. Obama didn’t want one, and said so in his debate with Romney. Obama and Biden then claimed 'victory" in Iraq and pulled out despite the please of the Iraqis and the advice of the Joint Chiefs and his own CIA director.
The withdrawal of troops from Iraq wasn’t Obama’s choice, and it certainly wasn’t Clinton’s choice. The removal of US troops was mandated by the US-Iraq Status of Forces Agreement that was signed by George Bush. The Iraqi’s refused to extend the agreement, and therefore it expired on 12/31/11.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S.%E2%80%93Iraq_Status_of_Forces_Agreement
 
Starting to see a bump in Hillary’s numbers. It is still early though

Election 2016 Clinton Trump Spread
RCP Poll Average 47.4 44.4 Clinton +3.0
4-Way RCP Average 43.9 41.0 Clinton +2.9 Trending Up
Excerpts from following article:

A Debate Victory Doesn’t Ensure a Real Shift in the Race
Historically, the polls that follow the first presidential debate have differed from the pre-debate polls by an average of just 2.5 points. The biggest shift? Only four points.
Those aren’t huge numbers, although they could be enough to make the race a true dead heat or to give Mrs. Clinton a comfortable lead.
The biggest post-debate shift came in 2012. Mitt Romney erased President Obama’s four-point lead in national polls after the first debate, creating a virtual tie in national polls that lasted for weeks.
But even if she does make big gains, it will be fair to wonder whether it actually matters. After all, Mr. Romney lost. In fact, he wound up losing by about the same margin he trailed by in the pre-debate polls: four points. The same story played out in 2000: Mr. Bush took a lead after the debates, and yet Mr. Gore ultimately came back and won the popular vote. In 2004, Mr. Kerry’s gains largely stuck, although he fell short in the election.
nytimes.com/2016/09/28/upshot/a-debate-victory-doesnt-ensure-a-real-shift-in-the-race.html?_r=0
 
The point is, she knew he was guilty. And then says,
“Today I want to send a message to every survivor of sexual assault,” Clinton said. “Don’t let anyone silence your voice. You have the right to be heard. You have the right to be believed and we’re with you.” Clearly she doesn’t practice what she says.

Most defense lawyers don’t want their clients to tell them too much about their guilt. They don’t want to know, understandably.
So what should she have done in your opinion? Provide a lukewarm defense of her client? Why stop there, why not full on sabotage her own case? :rolleyes:
 
You can’t be serious about pinning the entirety of the Iraq war on Clinton…

The Iraq Resolution was passed 77/23 in the senate and was supported by every single Republican with the exception of now democrat Lincoln Chafee. Clinton voting Nea wouldn’t have changed the outcome. All you’ve done is indict every single republican in the senate, as well as George Bush for their support.
Pater Plato’s post was packed with information, and this is all you get out of it? This wasn’t about the Republican vote, it was about Hillary condemning Trump for being in favor of the same war that SHE actually voted for.
 
So what should she have done in your opinion? Provide a lukewarm defense of her client? Why stop there, why not full on sabotage her own case? :rolleyes:
Stop telling women, “We’re with you.”
 
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.
You are too logical! 😉
 
Does anyone actually think polygraphs are credible? I mean really…

Most psychologists agree that there is little evidence that polygraph tests can accurately detect lies.

apa.org/research/action/polygraph.aspx
You are deflecting.

Her client passed the polygraph test because he was coached and she knowingly used what she knew was false to get him off.

We don’t need polygraphs to detect lying, do we? The propensity to lie has a way of showing up provided we are interested in the truth.

The question remains, “What is the truth here with regard to Clinton?”

She has no moral compunction against using lies and lying to aid her friends and allies. The polygraph incident was one issue, and it impacted one young child immensely.) The same propensity to lie shows up again and again: Benghazi, emails, Clinton Foundation, being shot at on runways, enabling Bill,
 
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.
But shouldn’t Trump have prepared a better answer than that ramble about China, Russia, his son being good on computers and fat guys?

She presented her completely vulnerable spot. Of course her reputation on cyber security is negative! He let it slide and talked about his 10 year old son being good with computers! My kid’s good with computers too. Can I be president?

He could have gotten some very strong debate points. But instead he let her look more informed.
 
You are deflecting.

Her client passed the polygraph test because he was coached and she knowingly used what she knew was false to get him off.

We don’t need polygraphs to detect lying, do we? The propensity to lie has a way of showing up provided we are interested in the truth.

The question remains, “What is the truth here with regard to Clinton?”

She has no moral compunction against using lies and lying to aid her friends and allies. The polygraph incident was one issue, and it impacted one young child immensely.) The same propensity to lie shows up again and again: Benghazi, emails, Clinton Foundation, being shot at on runways, enabling Bill,
Do you have proof the client was coached to pass a poly? You offer what is seemingly pure speculation with no evidence to backup your claim. 🤷

The better question is, why did a judge rule a polygraph was inadmissible, or better yet, why didn’t the prosecutor shred the credibility of the polygraph.
 
But shouldn’t Trump have prepared a better answer than that ramble about China, Russia, his son being good on computers and fat guys?

She presented her completely vulnerable spot. Of course her reputation on cyber security is negative! He let it slide and talked about his 10 year old son being good with computers! My kid’s good with computers too. Can I be president?

He could have gotten some very strong debate points. But instead he let her look more informed.
Yes. This is why IMHO Trump lost the debate.
 
You can’t be serious about pinning the entirety of the Iraq war on Clinton…

The Iraq Resolution was passed 77/23 in the senate and was supported by every single Republican with the exception of now democrat Lincoln Chafee. Clinton voting Nea wouldn’t have changed the outcome. All you’ve done is indict every single republican in the senate, as well as George Bush for their support.
What I wrote is nothing like “pinning the entirety of the Iraq war on Clinton.” You can’t be serious about reframing what I wrote as that, can you?

What I did was compare apples to apples: Trump’s view as a private citizen with no actual political power with regard to going to war, vis a vis Clinton’s actual vote in the Senate to do so. She is being hypocritical holding Trump’s feet to the fire when his views were of no consequence, but hers were. Of course, NOT “the entirety of the Iraq war,” but who ever claimed that, except you?
 
30 year record? I dislike the woman as much as the next person, but where does this number come from? She is/was SoS for four years and was a Senator from 01-09.

Last I checked these positions didn’t have unilateral policy power. Never mind these numbers don’t add up to 30 years in political office.
It comes from being a political insider for 30 years and is not just about unilateral policy power.
 
The Arizona Republic endorses Hillary Clinton

For the first time in its 126-year history
, The Arizona Republic has endorsed a Democratic candidate for president.

The paper’s editorial board said Hillary Clinton is “the only choice to move America ahead.”

“Since The Arizona Republic began publication in 1890, we have never endorsed a Democrat over a Republican for president. Never. This reflects a deep philosophical appreciation for conservative ideals and Republican principles,” the paper’s editorial board wrote. “This year is different.”

The editorial said Clinton’s temperament and experience prepare her for office, while it questioned Donald Trump for not releasing his tax returns, asking “whose hand do you want on the nuclear button?”

Clinton has racked up her fair share of nontraditional endorsements from newspapers. Last week, The Cincinnati Enquirer, which noted it had backed Republican candidates for president “for almost a century," also endorsed Clinton. Earlier this month, The Dallas Morning News endorsed the former secretary of state, making her the first Democrat that newspaper has endorsed in over 75 years.
From the editorial:

"Contrast Clinton’s tenacity and professionalism with Trump, who began his campaign with gross generalities about Mexico and Mexicans as criminals and rapists. These were careless slaps at a valued trading partner and Arizona’s neighbor. They were thoughtless insults about people whose labor and energy enrich our country.

Trump demonstrated his clumsiness on the world stage by making nice with Mexican President Enrique Peña Nieto only a few hours before appearing in Phoenix to deliver yet another rant about Mexican immigrants and border walls.

What’s more, Arizona went down the hardline immigration road Trump travels. It led our state to SB 1070, the 2010 “show me your papers” law that earned Arizona international condemnation and did nothing to resolve real problems with undocumented immigration.

Arizona understands that we don’t need a repeat of that divisive, unproductive fiasco on the national level. A recent poll shows Arizonans oppose both more walls and the mass deportations Trump endorses.

We need a president who can broker solutions.

Clinton calls for comprehensive immigration reform, a goal that business, faith and law enforcement leaders have sought for years. Her support for a pathway to citizenship and her call for compassion for families torn apart by deportation are consistent with her longtime support for human rights."

…]

"Trump’s long history of objectifying women and his demeaning comments about women during the campaign are not just good-old-boy gaffes.

They are evidence of deep character flaws. They are part of a pattern.

Trump mocked a reporter’s physical handicap. Picked a fight with a Gold Star family. Insulted POWs. Suggested a Latino judge can’t be fair because of his heritage. Proposed banning Muslim immigration.

Each of those comments show a stunning lack of human decency, empathy and respect. Taken together they reveal a candidate who doesn’t grasp our national ideals.

Many Republicans understand this. But they shudder at the thought of Hillary Clinton naming Supreme Court justices. So they stick with Trump. We get that. But we ask them to see Trump for what he is — and what he is not.

Trump’s conversion to conservatism is recent and unconvincing. There is no guarantee he will name solid conservatives to the Supreme Court.

Hillary Clinton has long been a centrist. Despite her tack left to woo Bernie Sanders supporters, Clinton retains her centrist roots. Her justices might not be in the mold of Antonin Scalia, but they will be accomplished individuals with the experience, education and intelligence to handle the job.

**They will be competent. **Just as she is competent."
 
This is silly.

Her support of her client (in keeping with her responsibility as a lawyer) then has nothing to do with her stance against sexual assault now.
Is it really silly when you look at how Hillary and Bill have both systematically abused Bill’s victims and women sexually, physically, and psychologically all in their scramble for power and wealth?
 
He could have gotten some very strong debate points. But instead he let her look more informed.
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:
 
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.
good points!
 
It comes from being a political insider for 30 years and is not just about unilateral policy power.
Political insider is a far cry from having any power to change policy. Let’s be real.
 
This is silly.

Her support of her client (in keeping with her responsibility as a lawyer) then has nothing to do with her stance against sexual assault now.
And what exactly does Trump’s tentative and changed view on the Iraq War as a merely partially informed private citizen have to do with his position on the Middle East today or when he is president? You need to be applying that principle (past vis a vis present) across the board, no?

The other point to be made is that Hillary’s stance on “sexual assault” didn’t merely make its appearance once “in support of her client,” but a multitude of times “defending” Bill’s “extravagances” involving other women by destroying those women on a personal level.

That shows an inconsistent pattern of opposition to sexual assault, one that can be capricious and arbitrary: against sexual assault when it is politically expedient, but tolerant of it when the stake is personal.

I would suppose only a foolish woman would think Hillary has some kind of principled opposition to sexual (or any other kind) of assault. Her position is clearly one of expedience and convenience.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top