Trump / Clinton--Final Presidential Debate Thread

[oliver927]

They weren’t talking about abortion. They were talking about tax brackets. And furthermore. No it’s not. Not on stage before millions of people across the world. It’s childish and utterly undignified for someone running for the highest office in the land. A seat that the likes of Washington, Jefferson, Lincoln, and Roosevelt held. It doesn’t matter if people think it’s true, or agree with it. There’s a right time and a wrong time to say certain things. Behaving like that was wrong.

Nasty seems pretty tame compared to some attacks from Washington and Jefferson’s era:

Jefferson’s campaign attacked Adams as “a hideous hermaphroditical character with neither the force and firmness of a man, nor the gentleness and sensibility of a woman.”

Adams campaign shot back calling Jefferson “a mean-spirited, low-lived fellow, the son of a half-breed Indian squaw, sired by a Virginia mulatto father.”

Please excuse me if I don’t think calling someone nasty is a big deal.

 

[Michael68]

Only if you believe Trump is not lying and he’s been caught out repeatedly in misstatements all along. Remember, this is the guy who said early on that he saw “thousands and thousands of Muslims in New Jersey” celebrating on 9/11. Yet that never happened. He has never recanted. Do you really think that someone that disconnected from reality is a good candidate for dog catcher…much less president? I don’t…

As well they should after his remarks on that Access Hollywood tape from 2005 and the 9 women who now have spoken out about his misconduct.

I don’t see it happening no matter who wins. It’s scare mongering…

Project much? The lady said “a path to citizenship” not amnesty. I disagree with your assessment of the debate. Trump lost it after the first half hour…

Indeed! the best so far!

Not a chance, but based on the rampant immorality and injustices in our nation look and see what God has said in the Bible in places like Jeremiah 9:2-9 and Isaiah 9:6-13 all of which can very easily be applied to our nation (and most of the western world)

I agree. Lots of things might go wrong but that ain’t one of them. The fact is that we are our own worst enemies and this election is exemplary of it.

Thanks Be To God!

Yeah, which again shows his lack of respect for the rule of law. Never in our 240 year history has anyone done so, which is actually one of the things that has surprised most other nations and been one of the marks of American greatness, but only someone who does not respect the constitution would threaten such a thing. But that defines Trump…

This also from the man that espouses the use of torture and again showed his contempt for the rule of law when he declared that military commanders would obey him if he ordered them to torture. The fact is that they can and should refuse any such illegal orders and he is dead wrong to assert that he will order it.

Al Gore!!!

 

[Rhubarb]

Nasty seems pretty tame compared to some attacks from Washington and Jefferson’s era:

Jefferson’s campaign attacked Adams as “a hideous hermaphroditical character with neither the force and firmness of a man, nor the gentleness and sensibility of a woman.”

Adams campaign shot back calling Jefferson “a mean-spirited, low-lived fellow, the son of a half-breed Indian squaw, sired by a Virginia mulatto father.”

Please excuse me if I don’t think calling someone nasty is a big deal.

According to the Thomas Jefferson Foundation, the first quote was given by “James Callender, a partisan newspaper editor. The quote appears in a pamphlet Callender published in 1800-1801, The Prospect Before Us.”

Regarding the second quote: “To date we have not found this quotation in any sources contemporary to the election of 1800. Its earliest known appearance in print is in a collection of New England folk tales, The Jonny-Cake Papers… Dixon Wecter, in his essay “Thomas Jefferson, The Gentle Radical,” discusses various portrayals of Jefferson by his political enemies, and mentions that “the Jonnycake [sic] Papers later burlesqued such caricatures.””

They were not published by campaigns, let alone spoken from the mouths of a candidate before millions of people during an official issue-oriented debate, but by 1. partisan hacks and 2. storytellers much, much later. I’m shocked that anyone would defend behavior that any grandmother would have grabbed us by the ear for showing when we were children.

 

[Michael68]

They weren’t talking about abortion. They were talking about tax brackets. And furthermore. No it’s not. Not on stage before millions of people across the world. It’s childish and utterly undignified for someone running for the highest office in the land. A seat that the likes of Washington, Jefferson, Lincoln, and Roosevelt held. It doesn’t matter if people think it’s true, or agree with it. There’s a right time and a wrong time to say certain things. Behaving like that was wrong.

Oh poor thing! She has called us a lot worse!

 

[oliver927]

They were not published by campaigns, let alone spoken from the mouths of a candidate before millions of people during an official issue-oriented debate, but by 1. partisan hacks and 2. storytellers much, much later. I’m shocked that anyone would defend behavior that any grandmother would have grabbed us by the ear for showing when we were children.

it seems I read bad info on the quotes.

Your grandmother grabbed you by the ear for calling someone nasty? Nasty is not a bad word, not even close.

 

[DeniseNY]

Oh poor thing! She has called us a lot worse!

Maybe he should have said “deplorable”. That seems to be acceptable.

 

[Rhubarb]

it seems I read bad info on the quotes.

Your grandmother grabbed you by the ear for calling someone nasty? Nasty is not a bad word, not even close.

We were swiftly and publicly disciplined for any rudeness, disrespect, or meanness. My brother and I grew up hearing a mantra taken from Disney’‘s Bambi: "if you can’t say somethin’ nice, don’t say anything at all." You don’t need profanity to be inappropriate.

And to answer the directly previous post: we were also taught that two wrongs don’t make a right. But I’m not worried about defending Clinton’'s feelings. That’s not what my objection is about. It’s about a crass substanceless comment delivered in the national stage in a debate for what is supposed to be one of the most solemn, important, and serious secular offices in our nation. It wasn’t a clever quip to illustrate a point, or part of a discussion. It was mud slinging of the lowest calibur.

 

[mattp0625]

Trump acknowledges his Supreme Court nominations could overturn Roe v Wade

 

[DeniseNY]

Wasn’t a similar thread removed last night?

 

[oliver927]

…You don’t need profanity to be inappropriate. …

Profanity?!? The fact that the word “Nasty” is not rendered as “*****” on this forum should tell you that it is not profane.

 

[Michael68]

We were swiftly and publicly disciplined for any rudeness, disrespect, or meanness. My brother and I grew up hearing a mantra taken from Disney’‘s Bambi: "if you can’t say somethin’ nice, don’t say anything at all." You don’t need profanity to be inappropriate.

And to answer the directly previous post: we were also taught that two wrongs don’t make a right. But I’m not worried about defending Clinton’'s feelings. That’s not what my objection is about. It’s about a crass substanceless comment delivered in the national stage in a debate for what is supposed to be one of the most solemn, important, and serious secular offices in our nation. It wasn’t a clever quip to illustrate a point, or part of a discussion. It was mud slinging of the lowest calibur.

Maybe he should have called her a deplorable. Is that acceptable? She used it so it must be

 

[Beautiful]

We were swiftly and publicly disciplined for any rudeness, disrespect, or meanness. My brother and I grew up hearing a mantra taken from Disney’‘s Bambi: "if you can’t say somethin’ nice, don’t say anything at all." You don’t need profanity to be inappropriate.

And to answer the directly previous post: we were also taught that two wrongs don’t make a right. But I’m not worried about defending Clinton’'s feelings. That’s not what my objection is about. It’s about a crass substanceless comment delivered in the national stage in a debate for what is supposed to be one of the most solemn, important, and serious secular offices in our nation. It wasn’t a clever quip to illustrate a point, or part of a discussion. It was mud slinging of the lowest calibur.

I understand what you are saying but the definition of ‘nasty’ applies well to the HRC in response to her promotion of abortion.

Consider that Trump is appealing to the vast majority of Americans that enjoy watching shows like The Simpsons, etc. HRC isn’t comfortable talking with people that talk like Trump and it shows. Americans see that. Trump doesn’t speak like a president but rather in a way that appeals to the majority.

In my world…people eat deer for dinner.

 

[Jeanne_S]

She dresses like the president of North Korea

Good call!

 

[randomuser]

Yes and it wasn’t that long ago and the democrats never got over it!

Yes, but the only thing they never got over was how the Supreme Court selected Bush, not that the election was “rigged.” Huge difference.

Speaking of the SCOTUS, nobody on this thread has mentioned what Hillary pointed out in the first segment of the debate – the Republicans have been negligent in their Constitutional duties to advise and consent of the SCOTUS nominee that Obama already selected: Merrick Garland, anyone? Obama did what he was supposed to do, per our U.S. Constitution, and yet Congress has sat on the nomination and done nothing – absolutely zippo.

So, in addition to the McConell et al shirking their Constitutional duties, we’ve got Trump declining to accept the results of the election – an orderly transfer of powers that is essential for our republic to function. The guy can’t even bring himself to shake hands with his opponent – how is that “PRO-LIFE” or in any way ‘presidential’? Not shaking hands? Who does that?

 

[Beautiful]

]The guy can’t even bring himself to shake hands with his opponent – how is that “PRO-LIFE” or in any way ‘presidential’? Not shaking hands? Who does that?

Pheww…I noticed HRC had drippy nasal passages …probably coming down with another cold. Good thing they didn’t shake!

Did Trump reject HRC’s hand? Did HRC even move in his direction to shake? She could’ve have…so why blame Trump?

 

[TCEL]

There are those of other Christian faiths who wouldn’t agree. People of faith who even your church calls Christian.

It’s entirely possible to be Christian and be wrong.

 

[Gertabelle]

The people sleeping the best were rooting for the Cubs.

*Hallelujah!

Praise the LORD, my soul;
I will praise the LORD all my life,
sing praise to my God while I live.

Put no trust in princes,
in children of Adam powerless to save.
Who breathing his last, returns to the earth;
that day all his planning comes to nothing.*

Blessed the one whose help is the God of Jacob,
whose hope is in the LORD, his God,
The maker of heaven and earth,
the seas and all that is in them,
Who keeps faith forever,

secures justice for the oppressed,
who gives bread to the hungry.
The LORD sets prisoners free;

the LORD gives sight to the blind.
The LORD raises up those who are bowed down;
the LORD loves the righteous.

The LORD protects the resident alien,
comes to the aid of the orphan and the widow,
but thwarts the way of the wicked.

The LORD shall reign forever,
your God, Zion, through all generations!

Hallelujah!

Amen! Alleluia!

And way to go, Cubs!!! :bounce:

 

[mikekle]

Exactly. If the election actually gets rigged and she wins because of voter fraud, than why would Trump just back off and be okay with that? He was right to say that he will wait and see. I’d expect her to wait and see as well.

I agree with you, that is what this country is all about, what would the founding fathers think if someone just accepted a rigged election and let the cheater win? LOL That would be absurd, and also absurd to think the american people would not care about this kind of thing!!

 

[randomuser]

Pheww…I noticed HRC had drippy nasal passages …probably coming down with another cold. Good thing they didn’t shake!

Did Trump reject HRC’s hand? Did HRC even move in his direction to shake? She could’ve have…so why blame Trump?

Yes, as a matter of fact, HRC did move in his direction to shake his hand – Trump’s body language said “go away” – so she went to shake Chris Wallace’s hand instead and then greeted the audience while Trump stayed on stage.

It’s a wee bit difficult for me to accept him as “pro-life” if he thinks she’s got cooties or is a baby-killer something and refuses to extend a simple handshake. This is the first election cycle in modern era that a basic professional courtesy has now gone out of the window – not just this 3rd debate, but the 2nd and 3rd debates. I ask again: Who does that? And he wants to be president?

 

[randomuser]

I agree with you, that is what this country is all about, what would the founding fathers think if someone just accepted a rigged election and let the cheater win? LOL That would be absurd, and also absurd to think the american people would not care about this kind of thing!!

This is not some third world country where there’s a coup every few months. It’s a democratic republic which requires a peaceful transition of power to function. If he can’t be bothered to even shake his opponent’s hand (a basic professional courtesy) and he can’t be bothered to respect the rule of law, that should be a huge red flag for anyone.