First Presidential Debate 9/26/16 Thread

  • Thread starter Thread starter gilliam
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Thorolfr said:
A liberal?
Click to expand...
Oh,she is beyond a liberal.I just heard a sound byte of her speaking today.She said umambiguously “The next forty days will determine the next forty years.” :eek::mad:If there is anybody who doubts she has her eye on the SCOTUS,and that those liberal appointments will not change the trajectory of this country for generations,they are fools.oh just noticed you edited your original post to centrist liberal…ROFL
 
Jeanne_S said:
Oh,she is beyond a liberal.I just heard a sound byte of her speaking today.She said umambiguously “The next forty days will determine the next forty years.” :eek::mad:If there is anybody who doubts she has her eye on the SCOTUS,and that those liberal appointments will not change the trajectory of this country for generations,they are fools.oh just noticed you edited your original post to centrist liberal…ROTFL
Click to expand...
So are you saying that Trump would not appoint very conservative justices and try and undo many past Supreme Court decisions? That could also change the trajectory of our country. No one is denying that this is an important election.
 
stinkcat_14 said:
In my opinion, I could never vote for Hillary, so what could I really say about her? If Trump didn’t have so many ethical issues, then perhaps I could vote for him. But he does not support family values, he does not support transparency. He seems to be basically out for himself, which is his right. I also have the right to criticize him and not support him.
Click to expand...
Of course you have the right, but I find it odd the he gets attacked way more by the “I can’t vote for either” posters than she does.

As to what you could say, it could be the same things those who oppose her and support Trump say - she is a liar, an enemy of the Church in many ways, promotes abortion and gay marriage, and cares nothing for national security.

Not you specifically, but the insistence from some posters to try to convince the Trump voters why he is bad is good, since thy don’t also do the same thing.

As nan aside, you seem to take a contrarian approach to a lot of things posted about both candidates, and see much more even keel. I fully expect that is a topic gets into lauding the financial plans of Hillary too much, you will show up and rain on that parade, so I don’t really see a bias.
 
meltzerboy said:
Both major presidential candidates say they want to benefit the middle class. I would wager that every political candidate says as much. However, if a candidate is himself benefiting from the corruption, how can we believe he wants to change the system in favor of someone else?
Click to expand...
When people realize that Obama could have raised income taxes on billionaires in 2008-2009 when he had Democratic majorities in BOTH the Senate AND the House of Representatives, yet he produced zero pieces of legislation to raise their taxes, they are going to wonder why they are wasting their time voting when the ideal scenario already came true. Dems needed zero Republican support to raise their taxes, yet they didn’t. Where are the outraged dems? Another missed opportunity for Trump at the debate.

Not only did Obama and the dems fail to raise taxes on billionaires when they owned congress, they passed Obamacare, which the Supreme Court ruled to be a tax (on the middle class) in order to be constitutional. Even HuffPo criticized Obama for widening the gap between the elites and the poor, which makes on wonder if all this is intentional: we buy cheap stuff overseas, they grow an educated middle class that goes on birth control for population control, our middle class gets poorer, until the US economy collapses and the .0000001% globalist elite ruling class get their one world utopia over the rest of us. See the lyrics to John Lennon’s song Imagine: one world govt, no private property, no religion, no religious wars, living for today. At least Bernie had the guts to be open and honest about this plan.
 
Thorolfr said:
So are you saying that Trump would not appoint very conservative justices and try and undo many past Supreme Court decisions? That could also change the trajectory of our country. No one is denying that this is an important election.
Click to expand...
It has to be remembered that the future president has to get their nominees confirmed by the Senate. They can’t appoint them by fiat.
 
Thorolfr said:
So are you saying that Trump would not appoint very conservative justices and try and undo many past Supreme Court decisions? That could also change the trajectory of our country. No one is denying that this is an important election.
Click to expand...
Trump has said he would appoint conservative judges.He came out today with a list of his possible nominees. So if he does that he will hopefully get our Country back on the right track.HC has as much stated she wants more Ruth Bader Ginsburgs on the court.This will forever change our country.Not for the better ,either.😦
 
stinkcat_14 said:
I think part of the problem is that people seem to think that there are only two candidates. One may argue that Trump is the lesser of two evils. One cannot come up with a reason why one should vote for Trump on his own merits.
Click to expand...
People seem to think that because, like it or not, it’s just the reality that one of 2 candidates will be the next POTUS and their names are not Johnson or Stein or any other name other than Clinton or Trump. I understand people’s frustration with a major 2 party system. I myself came close to voting for Nader in 2000. I left my apt undecided leaning Nader. But decided along the way to my polling place that I couldn’t risk helping elect GWB. Because if Nader hadn’t been on the ballot, I knew I’d have been voting for Gore. And it turns out an argument can be made that Nader voters in FL did contribute to the election of GWB. I’m glad I didn’t play a part in it but I have wondered how those 8 yrs might have been different instead of what transpired in wars and in the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression. But we shall never know. I actually have since voted for a 3rd party in a gubernatorial race and the candidate I least wanted won by just 1% while 3% of us voted for 3rd parties. As a result, I envision it would be hard for me to vote 3rd party again.
 
Expatreprocedit said:
I’ am in the third group, and I am “guilty” of your criticism/observation. I think it is a function of most posters here being for Trump,to varying degrees. HRC’s faults are well-covered by the pro-Trump posters. Also, her faults are those most people have come to expect of politicians: mainly dishonesty and self-dealing. So they aren’t as shocking, at least not to my generation. On the other hand, I and many people I converse with didn’t think we’d ever see a major presidential candidate as inarticulate and crass and emotionally vulnerable as Trump. I hope I don’t get reported for making uncharitable comments, but that is my honest opinion of him. Now maybe eloquence and aplomb are overrated qualities in a politician from a Christian pov, you can argue that and I might agree. But it is hard to picture Trump as a competent president. That doesn’t necessarily mean I’m going to vote for HRC.
Click to expand...
Perhaps, but the polling statistics on here show a pretty even split. There is an air of “you are wrong for voting for this guy” that we don’t hear from your side with Hillary, when in many people’s opinions, her weaknesses as a candidate for Catholics are far more serious. Yet, she gets nary an attack. And it isn’t as though she doesn’t have supporters. Sy Noe, Mulligan, Moritz, Leaf, TMC, Chero and more all are ready with their support.

If both candidates were equally disqualified, statistically, one would over time see criticism rise up for both that would even out. But I suspect some posters (and the ones who are pro-Catholic but loudly anti-Trump while staying silent on Clinton are well known around here) realize they can’t in good conscience vote for her, but deep down, they don’t truly loathe her the way they do trump, hence why she doesn’t get their ire.

Just a guess though. I am not in love with Trump at all, but see the evil she seeks to wrought on the country and the Church, and am left with no better option. That’s just me.
 
Jeanne_S said:
Trump has said he would appoint conservative judges.He came out today with a list of his possible nominees. So if he does that he will hopefully get our Country back on the right track.HC has as much stated she wants more Ruth Bader Ginsburgs on the court.This will forever change our country.Not for the better ,either.😦
Click to expand...
Not for the better is of course your opinion. 🙂
 
ManOnFire said:
When people realize that Obama could have raised income taxes on billionaires in 2008-2009 when he had Democratic majorities in BOTH the Senate AND the House of Representatives, yet he produced zero pieces of legislation to raise their taxes, they are going to wonder why they are wasting their time voting when the ideal scenario already came true. Dems needed zero Republican support to raise their taxes, yet they didn’t. Where are the outraged dems? Another missed opportunity for Trump at the debate.

Not only did Obama and the dems fail to raise taxes on billionaires when they owned congress, they passed Obamacare, which the Supreme Court ruled to be a tax (on the middle class) in order to be constitutional. Even HuffPo criticized Obama for widening the gap between the elites and the poor, which makes on wonder if all this is intentional: we buy cheap stuff overseas, they grow an educated middle class that goes on birth control for population control, our middle class gets poorer, until the US economy collapses and the .0000001% globalist elite ruling class get their one world utopia over the rest of us. See the lyrics to John Lennon’s song Imagine: one world govt, no private property, no religion, no religious wars, living for today. At least Bernie had the guts to be open and honest about this plan.
Click to expand...
There were a lot of things the Dems could have done when Obama took office. But what did they do for the poor or working people during that period of total control? Absolutely nothing but an additional tax called “Obamacare” and higher costs.

Hillary’s assertion that she’s going to tax only “the rich” is a crock. The truly rich don’t pay taxes to any real degree, and she knows it. Remember Warren Buffett bragging about how his secretary pays more in taxes than he does? Ultimately, and in one way or another, Clinton will raise taxes on the middle class, because that’s where the available money is. It is, in fact the only place the government can go to reliably get it.
 
Jeanne_S said:
Trump has said he would appoint conservative judges.He came out today with a list of his possible nominees. So if he does that he will hopefully get our Country back on the right track.HC has as much stated she wants more Ruth Bader Ginsburgs on the court.This will forever change our country.Not for the better ,either.😦
Click to expand...
But the “right track” for some people would be the “wrong track” for others. No one who is worried about climate change and environmental issues, wants expanded healthcare coverage so that all of our citizens are covered (almost every other rich country besides the US has some form of universal healthcare for its citizens), etc. etc., would vote for Trump.
 
Ridgerunner said:
Hillary’s assertion that she’s going to tax only “the rich” is a crock. The truly rich don’t pay taxes to any real degree, and she knows it. Remember Warren Buffett bragging about how his secretary pays more in taxes than he does? Ultimately, and in one way or another, Clinton will raise taxes on the middle class, because that’s where the available money is. It is, in fact the only place the government can go to reliably get it.
Click to expand...
You are using the present dysfunction of the tax code as an excuse for not seeking more rationality in taxation. There are measures that can be taken in an aim to make things more rational. Of course Trump doesn’t even think the rich paying practically no taxes is even a problem. At least HRC says the right things on this issue. Whether she would actually take action is an unknown.
 
Maximilan_Kolbe said:
Perhaps, but the polling statistics on here show a pretty even split. There is an air of “you are wrong for voting for this guy” that we don’t hear from your side with Hillary, when in many people’s opinions, her weaknesses as a candidate for Catholics are far more serious. Yet, she gets nary an attack. And it isn’t as though she doesn’t have supporters. Sy Noe, Mulligan, Moritz, Leaf, TMC, Chero and more all are ready with their support.
Click to expand...
No all of them are not. Here’s just one example of someone not voting.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=14192065&postcount=393
 
Sy_Noe said:
Not for the better is of course your opinion. 🙂
Click to expand...
So,your’e ok with having your individual rights and freedoms erode befor your very eyes?
Don’t think that is going to happen? It is already happening.This country will no longer be recognizable if the progressive elites get their way.
 
Thorolfr said:
No one who is worried about climate change and environmental issues, wants expanded healthcare coverage so that all of our citizens are covered (almost every other rich country besides the US has some form of universal healthcare for its citizens), etc. etc., would vote for Trump.
Click to expand...
All kinds of people who support Trump care about the environment. I’ll vote for Trump and I’ll lay dollars to donuts I have done more for the environment than any leftist on here. Why? Because I’m a rancher, among other things, and I know how to preserve and improve it, and do. In fact, the best environmentalists in this country are the farmers and ranchers, for whom the land is more than just some place they would like to think they might want to visit someday to see what they think “nature” is.

Climate change is another thing, though. Yes, I have read the claims and counterclaims ad nauseam. But one thing is for sure, when I was a kid, decades ago, you couldn’t successfully raise Bermuda hay much north of Springfield, Mo. And you still can’t. But you can south of it. Nor were there climate-sensitive roadrunners north of Springfield and there still aren’t. South of it there were and still are. If the climate had changed, the climate-sensitive things would have as well. (Yes I know all the stuff about how the heat is all in the arctic, or in the ocean, or in the deep ocean, all the excuses people use to explain why the climate hasn’t changed. And I know about the “heat sinks”. But still, nobody experience actual climate change.)

The problem with climate change ideology is that nobody actually experiences it. But in my state, our electric bills are projected to increase $1500 per year because of Obama’s war on coal. We don’t experience climate change itself, but we sure do feel the Obama administration’s policies based on it.

Health care is a scarce resource. Never, ever will everybody have the same level of care. It’s not true in other countries and it won’t be true here. The question is who gets more of it and who gets less of it. Under Obamacare, the rich are fine. They can, and always did, buy Cadillac plans. The poor are stuck with Medicaid, just like always, except more middle class people are now crowding into it. The ones who are really getting hit are middle class people, and no few of them can’t afford Obamacare.

So it’s not a matter of whether health care is scarce for all. It has always been a scarce resource. It’s a question of who bears the effect of the scarcity.
 
Jeanne_S said:
So,your’e ok with having your individual rights and freedoms erode befor your very eyes?
Don’t think that is going to happen? It is already happening.This country will no longer be recognizable if the progressive elites get their way.
Click to expand...
No I don’t think that is going to happen. I actually think the opposite.
 
Maximilan_Kolbe said:
Lol, not the point at all, and in attempt to refute what wasn’t the point at all, you cited someone who bashes Trump, says they aren’t eligible to vote, but if they could, would vote for Hillary. What was the purpose of that post again?
Click to expand...
You ran off a list of names who were ready to vote for Hillary Clinton and that clearly isn’t so.
 
Ridgerunner said:
Health care is a scarce resource. Never, ever will everybody have the same level of care. It’s not true in other countries and it won’t be true here. The question is who gets more of it and who gets less of it. Under Obamacare, the rich are fine. They can, and always did, buy Cadillac plans. The poor are stuck with Medicaid, just like always, except more middle class people are now crowding into it. The ones who are really getting hit are middle class people, and no few of them can’t afford Obamacare.

So it’s not a matter of whether health care is scarce for all. It has always been a scarce resource. It’s a question of who bears the effect of the scarcity.
Click to expand...
But in fact there are lots of poor people in our country who don’t even get Medicaid because many states refused to expand coverage under Obamacare. There are still a lot of people in our country who have no healthcare at all and rely on going to the emergency room which is not a substitute for regular healthcare. So it’s not just about different levels of care. For many people, it’s the difference between care and no care at all. I don’t know of any other rich countries that have people with no care at all.

And if we can spend almost $2 trillion for a war in Iraq, we can afford to have universal healthcare in the US.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top