THE DEBATES 2016

Kat

BS44325 said:

Kat said:

I've forgiven some Presidents' bad mistakes but with Bush it's different. Every time I hear his name, I think about the almost 4,500 military people and the hundreds of thousands of Iraqis who died in the Iraq war and are still dying. It's not forgivable with me. :(

Yet you forgive Hillary for being on board with the decision.

She wasn't exactly on board with the decision as it went down but Slate did a story that I'm linking to so you can see why. Many people were lied to and many people died. The liars are responsible for the dead. It's worth watching Senator Clinton's speech on the Senate floor before the vote was cast to see the entire context. Have a great evening.

"...an explanation for her vote, something she has rarely done in the past. President Bush, she told the audience, had made a “very explicit appeal” that “getting this vote would be a strong piece of leverage in order to finish the inspections.” In other words, a resolution to use force would prod Saddam Hussein into readmitting U.N. inspectors, so they could continue their mission of verifying whether or not he had destroyed his chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons sites."

(snip)

She went on to say that there was “no perfect approach to this thorny dilemma” and that “people of good faith and high intelligence can reach diametrically opposing conclusions.” But, she concluded, “I believe the best course is to go to the United Nations for a strong resolution” that calls “for complete, unlimited inspections with cooperation expected and demanded” from Saddam.

“If we get the resolution the president seeks, and Saddam complies,” Clinton added, “disarmament can proceed and the threat can be eliminated. … If we get the resolution and Saddam does not comply, we can attack him with far more support and legitimacy than we would have otherwise.” This international support is “crucial,” she added, because, “after shots are fired and bombs are dropped, not all consequences are predictable.”

Then came, from today’s vantage, the key passage: “Even though the resolution before the Senate is not as strong as I would like in requiring the diplomatic route first … I take the president at his word that he will try hard to pass a United Nations resolution and seek to avoid war, if possible. Because bipartisan support for this resolution makes success in the United Nations more likely and war less likely—and because a good faith effort by the United States, even if it fails, will bring more allies and legitimacy to our cause—I have concluded, after careful and serious consideration, that a vote for the resolution best serves the security of our nation. If we were to defeat this resolution or pass it with only a few Democrats, I am concerned that those who want to pretend this problem will go away with delay will oppose any United Nations resolution calling for unrestricted inspections.”


http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/war_stories/2016/02/hillary_clinton_told_the_truth_about_her_iraq_war_vote.html

BS44325

Kat said:

BS44325 said:

Kat said:

I've forgiven some Presidents' bad mistakes but with Bush it's different. Every time I hear his name, I think about the almost 4,500 military people and the hundreds of thousands of Iraqis who died in the Iraq war and are still dying. It's not forgivable with me. :(

Yet you forgive Hillary for being on board with the decision.

She wasn't exactly on board with the decision as it went down but Slate did a story that I'm linking to so you can see why. Many people were lied to and many people died. The liars are responsible for the dead. It's worth watching Senator Clinton's speech on the Senate floor before the vote was cast to see the entire context. Have a great evening.

"...an explanation for her vote, something she has rarely done in the past. President Bush, she told the audience, had made a “very explicit appeal” that “getting this vote would be a strong piece of leverage in order to finish the inspections.” In other words, a resolution to use force would prod Saddam Hussein into readmitting U.N. inspectors, so they could continue their mission of verifying whether or not he had destroyed his chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons sites."

(snip)

She went on to say that there was “no perfect approach to this thorny dilemma” and that “people of good faith and high intelligence can reach diametrically opposing conclusions.” But, she concluded, “I believe the best course is to go to the United Nations for a strong resolution” that calls “for complete, unlimited inspections with cooperation expected and demanded” from Saddam.

“If we get the resolution the president seeks, and Saddam complies,” Clinton added, “disarmament can proceed and the threat can be eliminated. … If we get the resolution and Saddam does not comply, we can attack him with far more support and legitimacy than we would have otherwise.” This international support is “crucial,” she added, because, “after shots are fired and bombs are dropped, not all consequences are predictable.”

Then came, from today’s vantage, the key passage: “Even though the resolution before the Senate is not as strong as I would like in requiring the diplomatic route first … I take the president at his word that he will try hard to pass a United Nations resolution and seek to avoid war, if possible. Because bipartisan support for this resolution makes success in the United Nations more likely and war less likely—and because a good faith effort by the United States, even if it fails, will bring more allies and legitimacy to our cause—I have concluded, after careful and serious consideration, that a vote for the resolution best serves the security of our nation. If we were to defeat this resolution or pass it with only a few Democrats, I am concerned that those who want to pretend this problem will go away with delay will oppose any United Nations resolution calling for unrestricted inspections.”


http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/war_stories/2016/02/hillary_clinton_told_the_truth_about_her_iraq_war_vote.html

That is called having your cake and eating it too. She was fully on board just like Senator Leiberman but lacked the courage of her convictions and jumped ship when Obama went to her left. I'm sorry but nobody believed that senate chamber spin when she ran against Obama and nobody is believing it now. She is complicit in the Iraq war you hate and doesn't get to wash her hands of her vote. If you are truly unable to forgive George W Bush then you should be honest and recognize that she can't be forgiven as well.

what dreams

Lots to think about here. Keep in mind I get almost all my political coverage from C-Span, where there are no commentators, and I generally don't read blogs or even newspapers anymore because objective journalism is dead. So I have no clue what the conventional spin is, and I don't care.

I'm still not convinced Clinton went home with a victory. I felt like Trump came out strong in the first segment on the economy and Clinton lost the opportunity to really push her economic agenda for working families. I don't feel like she got her bearings until that portion was over. Unfortunately for her, Trump's version of the state of our economy resonates with people, myself included (it sucks. Most people are still really struggling). I'm just rational enough to understand that his actual policies will fuck us all over more greatly than hers will fuck us over. I pretty much failed macroeconomicso in college, so I won't even pretend to understand the numbers. But I know enough from personal experience that Republicans get it wrong every time, no matter how it makes me feel to hear them tell their tale. I wish the rest of the 99% paid more attention to experience than feelings.

Trump disintegrated as the debate went on, but even in those places where he could have attacked more strongly to win points, I felt like he left open a lot of questions about Clinton's credibility. The open questions are still problematic to many voters. Her admission of a mistake about the email worked, I thought. People with forgiving hearts would hear the sincerity in her voice. The rest will just keep believing what they will.

I was concerned with much of Clinton's non-verbal behavior. At times she appeared smug and mocking. While I personally understand the inclination to mock Trump, she still has voters in swing states to win over. The like-ability thing matters to them, and I can see why people can be turned off the appearance of her arrogance. I wish that while Trump was going off his deep ends that she would have maintained a more neutral composure and let him combust all on his own without rolling her eyes and laughing when he was done. If her laughter were genuine, I'd go with it. But it wasn't genuine. It was a forced "look at stupid" kind of laugh that people don't really like, no matter whom we're laughing at.

Clearly Clinton's foreign policy answers were stronger. There was never any doubt that she would win those points. I especially appreciated her appeal to the rest of the world on behalf the American people that we will honor our commitments.

Overall, I was disappointed with the debate. I didn't get to see Trump completely bury himself, nor did Clinton hit a home run with voters in my region that I care about. I hope she does better next time.

Cliffy6745

what dreams said:

Lots to think about here. Keep in mind I get almost all my political coverage from C-Span, where there are no commentators, and I generally don't read blogs or even newspapers anymore because objective journalism is dead. So I have no clue what the conventional spin is, and I don't care.

I'm still not convinced Clinton went home with a victory. I felt like Trump came out strong in the first segment on the economy and Clinton lost the opportunity to really push her economic agenda for working families. I don't feel like she got her bearings until that portion was over. Unfortunately for her, Trump's version of the state of our economy resonates with people, myself included (it sucks. Most people are still really struggling). I'm just rational enough to understand that his actual policies will fuck us all over more greatly than hers will fuck us over. I pretty much failed macroeconomicso in college, so I won't even pretend to understand the numbers. But I know enough from personal experience that Republicans get it wrong every time, no matter how it makes me feel to hear them tell their tale. I wish the rest of the 99% paid more attention to experience than feelings.

Trump disintegrated as the debate went on, but even in those places where he could have attacked more strongly to win points, I felt like he left open a lot of questions about Clinton's credibility. The open questions are still problematic to many voters. Her admission of a mistake about the email worked, I thought. People with forgiving hearts would hear the sincerity in her voice. The rest will just keep believing what they will.

I was concerned with much of Clinton's non-verbal behavior. At times she appeared smug and mocking. While I personally understand the inclination to mock Trump, she still has voters in swing states to win over. The like-ability thing matters to them, and I can see why people can be turned off the appearance of her arrogance. I wish that while Trump was going off his deep ends that she would have maintained a more neutral composure and let him combust all on his own without rolling her eyes and laughing when he was done. If her laughter were genuine, I'd go with it. But it wasn't genuine. It was a forced "look at stupid" kind of laugh that people don't really like, no matter whom we're laughing at.

Clearly Clinton's foreign policy answers were stronger. There was never any doubt that she would win those points. I especially appreciated her appeal to the rest of the world on behalf the American people that we will honor our commitments.

Overall, I was disappointed with the debate. I didn't get to see Trump completely bury himself, nor did Clinton hit a home run with voters in my region that I care about. I hope she does better next time.

I think you make a lot of fair points but I couldn't disagree more on the split screen composure. I thought she came across very well and when he was talking shit she largely stared right into the camera. Compared to his drinking, sniffing, whatever he was doing with this face/eyes, she looked like a pro

cutz

Undecided voter here, and after last night's debate: i'm still undecided. Neither one did anything for me, one way or the other. Lets see how the next debates go.

benjs

To me, I think that the net change from this debate is going to be pretty much nil. I think anyone skeptical of either Trump or Clinton will still be skeptical after the debate. Anyone who believed in either will still find things to believe in. Anyone who just plain hated one of them will still just plain hate them after the debate. In other words - nothing was learnt about either candidate, so no changed perceptions.

Go Beavers

Undecided? Really? Please help me understand how you can be undecided.

Go Beavers

what dreams said:

Lots to think about here. Keep in mind I get almost all my political coverage from C-Span, where there are no commentators, and I generally don't read blogs or even newspapers anymore because objective journalism is dead. So I have no clue what the conventional spin is, and I don't care.

I'm still not convinced Clinton went home with a victory. I felt like Trump came out strong in the first segment on the economy and Clinton lost the opportunity to really push her economic agenda for working families. I don't feel like she got her bearings until that portion was over. Unfortunately for her, Trump's version of the state of our economy resonates with people, myself included (it sucks. Most people are still really struggling). I'm just rational enough to understand that his actual policies will fuck us all over more greatly than hers will fuck us over. I pretty much failed macroeconomicso in college, so I won't even pretend to understand the numbers. But I know enough from personal experience that Republicans get it wrong every time, no matter how it makes me feel to hear them tell their tale. I wish the rest of the 99% paid more attention to experience than feelings.

Trump disintegrated as the debate went on, but even in those places where he could have attacked more strongly to win points, I felt like he left open a lot of questions about Clinton's credibility. The open questions are still problematic to many voters. Her admission of a mistake about the email worked, I thought. People with forgiving hearts would hear the sincerity in her voice. The rest will just keep believing what they will.

I was concerned with much of Clinton's non-verbal behavior. At times she appeared smug and mocking. While I personally understand the inclination to mock Trump, she still has voters in swing states to win over. The like-ability thing matters to them, and I can see why people can be turned off the appearance of her arrogance. I wish that while Trump was going off his deep ends that she would have maintained a more neutral composure and let him combust all on his own without rolling her eyes and laughing when he was done. If her laughter were genuine, I'd go with it. But it wasn't genuine. It was a forced "look at stupid" kind of laugh that people don't really like, no matter whom we're laughing at.

Clearly Clinton's foreign policy answers were stronger. There was never any doubt that she would win those points. I especially appreciated her appeal to the rest of the world on behalf the American people that we will honor our commitments.

Overall, I was disappointed with the debate. I didn't get to see Trump completely bury himself, nor did Clinton hit a home run with voters in my region that I care about. I hope she does better next time.

So basically you didn't judge the debate very much on policy and content, but personality, communication process, and your subjective reaction to those things?

BS44325

Go Beavers said:

what dreams said:

Lots to think about here. Keep in mind I get almost all my political coverage from C-Span, where there are no commentators, and I generally don't read blogs or even newspapers anymore because objective journalism is dead. So I have no clue what the conventional spin is, and I don't care.

I'm still not convinced Clinton went home with a victory. I felt like Trump came out strong in the first segment on the economy and Clinton lost the opportunity to really push her economic agenda for working families. I don't feel like she got her bearings until that portion was over. Unfortunately for her, Trump's version of the state of our economy resonates with people, myself included (it sucks. Most people are still really struggling). I'm just rational enough to understand that his actual policies will fuck us all over more greatly than hers will fuck us over. I pretty much failed macroeconomicso in college, so I won't even pretend to understand the numbers. But I know enough from personal experience that Republicans get it wrong every time, no matter how it makes me feel to hear them tell their tale. I wish the rest of the 99% paid more attention to experience than feelings.

Trump disintegrated as the debate went on, but even in those places where he could have attacked more strongly to win points, I felt like he left open a lot of questions about Clinton's credibility. The open questions are still problematic to many voters. Her admission of a mistake about the email worked, I thought. People with forgiving hearts would hear the sincerity in her voice. The rest will just keep believing what they will.

I was concerned with much of Clinton's non-verbal behavior. At times she appeared smug and mocking. While I personally understand the inclination to mock Trump, she still has voters in swing states to win over. The like-ability thing matters to them, and I can see why people can be turned off the appearance of her arrogance. I wish that while Trump was going off his deep ends that she would have maintained a more neutral composure and let him combust all on his own without rolling her eyes and laughing when he was done. If her laughter were genuine, I'd go with it. But it wasn't genuine. It was a forced "look at stupid" kind of laugh that people don't really like, no matter whom we're laughing at.

Clearly Clinton's foreign policy answers were stronger. There was never any doubt that she would win those points. I especially appreciated her appeal to the rest of the world on behalf the American people that we will honor our commitments.

Overall, I was disappointed with the debate. I didn't get to see Trump completely bury himself, nor did Clinton hit a home run with voters in my region that I care about. I hope she does better next time.

So basically you didn't judge the debate very much on policy and content, but personality, communication process, and your subjective reaction to those things?

There was no policy and content. One spoke platitudes and the other spoke gibberish.

what dreams

Go Beavers said:

what dreams said:

Lots to think about here. Keep in mind I get almost all my political coverage from C-Span, where there are no commentators, and I generally don't read blogs or even newspapers anymore because objective journalism is dead. So I have no clue what the conventional spin is, and I don't care.

I'm still not convinced Clinton went home with a victory. I felt like Trump came out strong in the first segment on the economy and Clinton lost the opportunity to really push her economic agenda for working families. I don't feel like she got her bearings until that portion was over. Unfortunately for her, Trump's version of the state of our economy resonates with people, myself included (it sucks. Most people are still really struggling). I'm just rational enough to understand that his actual policies will fuck us all over more greatly than hers will fuck us over. I pretty much failed macroeconomicso in college, so I won't even pretend to understand the numbers. But I know enough from personal experience that Republicans get it wrong every time, no matter how it makes me feel to hear them tell their tale. I wish the rest of the 99% paid more attention to experience than feelings.

Trump disintegrated as the debate went on, but even in those places where he could have attacked more strongly to win points, I felt like he left open a lot of questions about Clinton's credibility. The open questions are still problematic to many voters. Her admission of a mistake about the email worked, I thought. People with forgiving hearts would hear the sincerity in her voice. The rest will just keep believing what they will.

I was concerned with much of Clinton's non-verbal behavior. At times she appeared smug and mocking. While I personally understand the inclination to mock Trump, she still has voters in swing states to win over. The like-ability thing matters to them, and I can see why people can be turned off the appearance of her arrogance. I wish that while Trump was going off his deep ends that she would have maintained a more neutral composure and let him combust all on his own without rolling her eyes and laughing when he was done. If her laughter were genuine, I'd go with it. But it wasn't genuine. It was a forced "look at stupid" kind of laugh that people don't really like, no matter whom we're laughing at.

Clearly Clinton's foreign policy answers were stronger. There was never any doubt that she would win those points. I especially appreciated her appeal to the rest of the world on behalf the American people that we will honor our commitments.

Overall, I was disappointed with the debate. I didn't get to see Trump completely bury himself, nor did Clinton hit a home run with voters in my region that I care about. I hope she does better next time.

So basically you didn't judge the debate very much on policy and content, but personality, communication process, and your subjective reaction to those things?

What policy? Did they discuss much policy? Content, as in tax returns, birth certificates, and Rosie O'Donnell? I will go back to the C-Span archive, re-listen (already listened twice), and count exactly how many minutes they discussed policy.

Like I said, Trump pretty much dominated the opening economic discussion. I also said Clinton dominated the foreign policy discussion...In between the opening and closing segment, there wasn't much. Please tell me which other policy discussions I missed, and I will address those.

Please know I am actively campaigning for Clinton in my swing district. The entire state of Virginia depends on my district. I have skin in the game. I know the voters I'm dealing with, and their votes will matter more than most of yours in this election. She needed to do better.

Smellyman

Go Beavers said:

Undecided? Really? Please help me understand how you can be undecided.

I have no Idea how someone can be undecided either. I mean Trump supporters are loons, are undecideds wavering on lunacy?

Halifax2TheMax

BS44325 said:

Kat said:

BS44325 said:

Kat said:

I've forgiven some Presidents' bad mistakes but with Bush it's different. Every time I hear his name, I think about the almost 4,500 military people and the hundreds of thousands of Iraqis who died in the Iraq war and are still dying. It's not forgivable with me. :(

Yet you forgive Hillary for being on board with the decision.

She wasn't exactly on board with the decision as it went down but Slate did a story that I'm linking to so you can see why. Many people were lied to and many people died. The liars are responsible for the dead. It's worth watching Senator Clinton's speech on the Senate floor before the vote was cast to see the entire context. Have a great evening.

"...an explanation for her vote, something she has rarely done in the past. President Bush, she told the audience, had made a “very explicit appeal” that “getting this vote would be a strong piece of leverage in order to finish the inspections.” In other words, a resolution to use force would prod Saddam Hussein into readmitting U.N. inspectors, so they could continue their mission of verifying whether or not he had destroyed his chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons sites."

(snip)

She went on to say that there was “no perfect approach to this thorny dilemma” and that “people of good faith and high intelligence can reach diametrically opposing conclusions.” But, she concluded, “I believe the best course is to go to the United Nations for a strong resolution” that calls “for complete, unlimited inspections with cooperation expected and demanded” from Saddam.

“If we get the resolution the president seeks, and Saddam complies,” Clinton added, “disarmament can proceed and the threat can be eliminated. … If we get the resolution and Saddam does not comply, we can attack him with far more support and legitimacy than we would have otherwise.” This international support is “crucial,” she added, because, “after shots are fired and bombs are dropped, not all consequences are predictable.”

Then came, from today’s vantage, the key passage: “Even though the resolution before the Senate is not as strong as I would like in requiring the diplomatic route first … I take the president at his word that he will try hard to pass a United Nations resolution and seek to avoid war, if possible. Because bipartisan support for this resolution makes success in the United Nations more likely and war less likely—and because a good faith effort by the United States, even if it fails, will bring more allies and legitimacy to our cause—I have concluded, after careful and serious consideration, that a vote for the resolution best serves the security of our nation. If we were to defeat this resolution or pass it with only a few Democrats, I am concerned that those who want to pretend this problem will go away with delay will oppose any United Nations resolution calling for unrestricted inspections.”


http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/war_stories/2016/02/hillary_clinton_told_the_truth_about_her_iraq_war_vote.html

That is called having your cake and eating it too. She was fully on board just like Senator Leiberman but lacked the courage of her convictions and jumped ship when Obama went to her left. I'm sorry but nobody believed that senate chamber spin when she ran against Obama and nobody is believing it now. She is complicit in the Iraq war you hate and doesn't get to wash her hands of her vote. If you are truly unable to forgive George W Bush then you should be honest and recognize that she can't be forgiven as well.

Sorry, but this is all on GWB. It was a war of choice, an unnecessary war, a war congress approved but GWB didn't have to execute. Him and Cheney should both rot in hell and I really wonder how either of them sleep at night. You neocons can say it was right, blame it on Hillary or still believe there's WMDs in Iraq but it doesn't change the facts. GWB made a colossal mistake, one we're still paying for and will be paying for for generations.

http://m.motherjones.com/politics/2011/12/leadup-iraq-war-timeline

Halifax2TheMax

In case you don't like Mother Jones:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/defence/6625840/Iraq-report-Timeline-before-and-after-the-war.html

Halifax2TheMax

More resources to consider why GWB and Cheney are responsible for the biggest fuck up of the 21st century:

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/politics/2006/feb/02/iraq.iraq?0p19G=e

The Juggler

https://www.youtube.com/watch?annotation_id=annotation_3616140065&feature=iv&src_vid=5BJjUv_TD2E&v=5TBsoYp33WY

igotid88

From what I've read here, twiiter, and facebook. And seen mostly from the media. Trump can say anything and it will be taken as fact and not pressed. But with Hillary, it's we need to know more. She went through 11 hours of testimony. We need more. Explain yourself. Don't smile. Don't talk so loud. Don't get sick.

Cliffy6745

cutz said:

Undecided voter here, and after last night's debate: i'm still undecided. Neither one did anything for me, one way or the other. Lets see how the next debates go.

You seriously can't be an undecided voter between Trump and Hillary at this point, right? You're kidding, right?

ledvedderman

I think he's serious. If he's serious, I'd like to know what issues are important to him. Because these two aren't close on many issues.

cutz

Cliffy6745 said:

cutz said:

Undecided voter here, and after last night's debate: i'm still undecided. Neither one did anything for me, one way or the other. Lets see how the next debates go.

You seriously can't be an undecided voter between Trump and Hillary at this point, right? You're kidding, right?

So, you think i'm the only voter who is still undecided right now? You're kidding right?

Like i said: still more debates to go, though i'm not entirely basing my decision solely on them.

Degeneratefk

cutz said:

Cliffy6745 said:

cutz said:

Undecided voter here, and after last night's debate: i'm still undecided. Neither one did anything for me, one way or the other. Lets see how the next debates go.

You seriously can't be an undecided voter between Trump and Hillary at this point, right? You're kidding, right?

So, you think i'm the only voter who is still undecided right now? You're kidding right?

Like i said: still more debates to go, though i'm not entirely basing my decision solely on them.

What are you basing your decision on them of you're waiting for the next 2 debates?