Live Presidential Debate Reactions

[Mike M (the other one)]

(10-20-2016, 06:54 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: Take us to war?  We've been at war CONTINUOUSLY since late 2001. Since only 1% of the US population has deployed in support of the Global War on Terrorism I know many don't feel the affects as acutely as others. But, goddamn, I thought people were at least vaguely aware we (1%) were at war and had been deploying overseas every other year for over a decade.   

I guess you have been so distracted by the war you forgot there was a war going on. 

No Shit Sherlock, she's going to make it worse or get us into a new one to hide her deficiencies in politics at home.

[Mike M (the other one)]

(10-20-2016, 07:06 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Nothing strange at all about you believing this.

You have never had much of a clue when it comes to politics. 

Sure I do, but if you think "having a clue" is to be like you, then I'd rather stay clueless.

[BmorePat87]

(10-20-2016, 07:17 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I've seen you mention this a time or two and nothing could be further from the truth. Of any candidate in the history of Presidential elections his "little letter" by his name has less to do with his support base than any other.

Those in the hierarchy of the "little letter" do not give him any support. 

I think you just say it in a failed effort to belittle the poster. 

It's safe to say that what defense he does get from Republicans is almost entirely a result of his little letter, considering how many he insulted (and still got their endorsements), what god awful things he has said, the conspiracy theories he has pushed, and his record inexperience.

55% of the party is now stuck with what 45% elected. I'd say in this election more than ever, the majority of Republicans voters are backing this candidate solely because he's the Republican party's nominee against Hillary Clinton. If the minority within the Republican base that elected him was the only group defending him, his election hopes would be looking even more bleak than they look right now. 

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(10-20-2016, 07:35 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: No Shit Sherlock, she's going to make it worse or get us into a new one to hide her deficiencies in politics at home.

Oh, you are aware. So you didn't mean take us to war, you meant make the current war worse or start more wars. Thanks for clearing up your confusion. 

BTW, could you tell me what Trump meant when he stated he would, "bomb the shit out of them"? What about committing war crimes like, "take out their families"?

Would bombing the shit out of them and committing war crimes make things better or worse, Sherlock?

[fredtoast]

(10-20-2016, 07:35 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: No Shit Sherlock, she's going to make it worse or get us into a new one to hide her deficiencies in politics at home.

Wait.  What?

I thought the problem with Hillary was that she was too soft on ISIS and failed as Sec of State because she refused to commit more troops on the ground.

Now she is too war hungry?   Hillary has got you guys spinning around so much you can't even get your stories straight.

Then there is this quote by Trump

[*bfine32*]

(10-20-2016, 08:38 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: It's safe to say that what defense he does get from Republicans is almost entirely a result of his little letter, considering how many he insulted (and still got their endorsements), what god awful things he has said, the conspiracy theories he has pushed, and his record inexperience.

55% of the party is now stuck with what 45% elected. I'd say in this election more than ever, the majority of Republicans voters are backing this candidate solely because he's the Republican party's nominee against Hillary Clinton. If the minority within the Republican base that elected him was the only group defending him, his election hopes would be looking even more bleak than they look right now. 

Just seems kind of silly to suggest folks are voting for Trump because of the letter beside his name. I have actually never seen such division in a party in my life, but I suppose, somehow it makes sense to you. I see more folks defending Trump for other reasons that political affiliation. 

Now you want to talk lock-step. the party that supports the candidate that cheated her way to the nomination is one that I find based on nothing more that the "little letter" beside her name. 

BTW, when was the first time you stated Trump didn't have a chance?

[fredtoast]

(10-20-2016, 10:00 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Just seems kind of silly to suggest folks are voting for Trump because of the letter beside his name. I have actually never seen such division in a party in my life, but I suppose, somehow it makes sense to you. I see more folks defending Trump for other reasons that political affiliation. 

Yeah, right.  No one ever says that they don't like Trump but they are just voting for him because he is "better than Hillary".

Both sides do it, but it has reached shocking levels when the party that is supposed to be the defender of Christian family values backs Trump.  Some Democrats may not think Hillary is trustworthy, but she is not promoting values that are the exact opposite of the Democratic party.  Trump getting the Republican nomination would be like a the Democrats nominating a Klansman.

[*bfine32*]

(10-20-2016, 11:00 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Yeah, right.  No one ever says that they don't like Trump but they are just voting for him because he is "better than Hillary".

Both sides do it, but it has reached shocking levels when the party that is supposed to be the defender of Christian family values backs Trump.  Some Democrats may not think Hillary is trustworthy, but she is not promoting values that are the exact opposite of the Democratic party.  Trump getting the Republican nomination would be like a the Democrats nominating a Klansman.

I can only assume in your head you thought you were going to provide a counter-point to my point (see "yeah right"); however, you just provided support. Thanks

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(10-20-2016, 11:17 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I can only assume in your head you thought you were going to provide a counter-point to my point (see "yeah right"); however, you just provided support. Thanks

Enough with the talkie-talk. You asked for names. We gave you names. Now tell us their reactions or don't tease us like that. 

[BmorePat87]

(10-20-2016, 10:00 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Just seems kind of silly to suggest folks are voting for Trump because of the letter beside his name. I have actually never seen such division in a party in my life, but I suppose, somehow it makes sense to you. I see more folks defending Trump for other reasons that political affiliation. 

To quote you "I can only assume in your head you thought you were going to provide a counter-point to my point[s] (see [just seems kind of silly]); however, you just provided support. Thanks"

Quote:Now you want to talk lock-step. the party that supports the candidate that cheated her way to the nomination is one that I find based on nothing more that the "little letter" beside her name. 

What does Hillary have to do with this? You know a Republican has nothing when they have to bring up Hillary to defend defending Trump.

Quote:BTW, when was the first time you stated Trump didn't have a chance?

I'm not sure, but if you can find that for me, I'd love to see it. I always get a kick out of seeing how right I am all the time. 

[BmorePat87]

I apologize to the OP for helping this thread to get off track. I'll stick to the debate.

[GMDino]

(10-20-2016, 07:22 PM)bfine32 Wrote: She blames Russia for everything (she wants people to "live in fear")

Last night when it was brought up that folks in her campaign paid people to cause trouble at Trumps rallies; it was the Russian's fault.

James...O'Keefe.

Who won't release unedited tapes anymore because every time he does he's shown to be an assclown.

(10-20-2016, 07:22 PM)bfine32 Wrote: We it is brought up that she deleted over 30,000 emails after subpoena by the FBI; it was the Russian's fault.

The fact that folks fall for this is silly 

She took responsibility for the server, she explained the emails, she was investigated and not charged for the server and emails.

Maybe we can talk about it again?

[*bfine32*]

(10-21-2016, 08:11 AM)BmorePat87 Wrote: 1) To quote you "I can only assume in your head you thought you were going to provide a counter-point to my point[s] (see [just seems kind of silly]); however, you just provided support. Thanks"






2) What does Hillary have to do with this? You know a Republican has nothing when they have to bring up Hillary to defend defending Trump.



3) I'm not sure, but if you can find that for me, I'd love to see it. I always get a kick out of seeing how right I am all the time. 

1) Imitation is the greatest form of flattery; although it this case it had zero relevance. But thanks for the admiration all the same.

2) Has absolutely nothing to do with Hillary or defending Trump; it has to do with those that you accuse of voting for a certain candidate simply because of the “little letter” by his or her name. Not sure how you missed to correlation.

3) I think it first occurred when you suggested Trump had no shot at the GOP nod. I too, get a kick out of seeing how “right” you always are. I just think we enjoy it for different reasons.

[Mike M (the other one)]

(10-20-2016, 01:56 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: It's admirable that you're trying to spin character flaws into qualifying traits for the Presidency, but I think after last night, you don't have to defend Trump anymore merely because of the little letter next to his name. It's safe to say he ended his hopes at mounting a come back last night.

Didn't see your response.
Cap on me all you want, but unlike your chosen one, I at least understand what a letter means...

[*PhilHos*]

(10-21-2016, 09:00 AM)GMDino Wrote: 1)She took responsibility for the server, 2) she explained the emails,

1) Yeah, only after the truth came out. Prior to that, it was lie and obfuscation.

2) True, she did. Many times. Which was your favorite excuse, er explanation?

[fredtoast]

(10-20-2016, 11:17 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I can only assume in your head you thought you were going to provide a counter-point to my point (see "yeah right"); however, you just provided support. Thanks

You said it was silly to think that Republicans are just voting for Trump because he is a Republican.

I said the exact opposite.  I said that both sides do this, and to prove it I pointed out that the Republican Party, which is supposed to be the party of Christian family values, is supporting Trump.

Don't know how that supports your opinion at all.  Care to explain?

[BmorePat87]

(10-21-2016, 11:42 AM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: Didn't see your response.
Cap on me all you want, but unlike your chosen one, I at least understand what a letter means...

Gary Johnson doesn't know what the "R" means?

I mean, yea, he's probably high most of the time, but come on.

[GMDino]

(10-21-2016, 11:53 AM)PhilHos Wrote: 1) Yeah, only after the truth came out. Prior to that, it was lie and obfuscation.

2) True, she did. Many times. Which was your favorite excuse, er explanation?

1) And?  She didn't believe she did anything wrong.  She took responsibility and didn't lie about it.  Is that bad?

2) The one where they were deleted by the people who did it...not her.

[*bfine32*]

(10-21-2016, 12:00 PM)fredtoast Wrote: You said it was silly to think that Republicans are just voting for Trump because he is a Republican.

I said the exact opposite.  I said that both sides do this, and to prove it I pointed out that the Republican Party, which is supposed to be the party of Christian family values, is supporting Trump.

Don't know how that supports your opinion at all.  Care to explain?

Sure, it is my opinion that more conservative folks that normally vote along party lines will not vote for Trump. I think if looked for a worse example of voting simply because of party affiliation, we could find no worse example than Trump. He won the nod in spite of the "little letter" beside his name, not because of it and to suggest folks will blindly vote for him because of Party is a failed attempt at demeaning folks IMO.

Most that vote for Trump will do so because of what he stands for and I venture to guess a good deal have never really gotten too much into politics.

[*PhilHos*]

(10-21-2016, 12:00 PM)fredtoast Wrote: the Republican Party, which is supposed to be the party of Christian family values, is supporting Trump.

You keep mentioning this, why? Do you honestly think that the Christians that are voting for Trump (and, let me tell you, based on my Facebook newsfeed, that is certainly not true of all Christians) are doing so because of his family values?

Based on my own circle of friends and family, the number one reason my Christian friends that are voting for Trump are doing so because of abortion. As far as I can tell, none are holding Trump up as to be some paragon of family values. Heck, most don't hold up the Republican party that way as well, though most believe the Republicans are better for their religious beliefs than Democrats.