Live Presidential Debate Reactions

[Mike M (the other one)]

(10-21-2016, 04:22 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: If we are bombing them, then what did Trump mean when he stated he would "bomb the shit out of them"?  Did he mean he would continuing doing the same thing you think Hillary has failed to do, but just admitted "we" are doing?  Explain how Trump "bombing the shit out of them" is different than the bombing you claim "we" are currently doing. 

As usual, Hillary had chances, but made the wrong call again.

Hillary did not ever on her term order the bombing or participate in ordering the bombing of ISIS/ISIL. Sell them weapons?? Most Likely.

She resigned in Feb 2013 as SOS.
We didn't start bombing ISIS/ISIL until Sept 2014.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(10-27-2016, 04:25 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: As usual, Hillary had chances, but made the wrong call again.

Hillary did not ever on her term order the bombing or participate in ordering the bombing of ISIS/ISIL. Sell them weapons?? Most Likely.

She resigned in Feb 2013 as SOS.
We didn't start bombing ISIS/ISIL until Sept 2014.

You might be the only person who knows less about this than Donald Trump. 

The Secretary of State decides who "we" bomb, where "we" bomb them, and when "we" bomb them?

If we are bombing them, are we bombing the shit out of them?

If Hillary didn't bomb them then, what makes you think she will bomb them later and "take us to war"?

[Mike M (the other one)]

(10-27-2016, 05:53 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote:  
You might be the only person who knows less about this than Donald Trump. 

The Secretary of State decides who "we" bomb, where "we" bomb them, and when "we" bomb them?

If we are bombing them, are we bombing the shit out of them?

If Hillary didn't bomb them then, what makes you think she will bomb them later and "take us to war"?

Now you are taking 2 conversations and mashing them together as one.
I responded to Fred about her time as SOS. With you I'm talking only about IF ELECTED as POTUS.


I said originally that IF Elected Hillary would make the current war(s) worse or get us into a new one.

Hillary has not said she would bomb the shit out of anyone, she has said that she would put up No-Fly Zones, if elected.

She has nothing do with the current bombings of ISIL. She is not the POTUS, and nothing was done while she was SOS. And if you think I believe that as SOS she has that power, then you must believe that she gave the hit order on Bin Laden with out POTUS approval.    
BTW Since we are talking about her time as SOS now, she did recommend to Obama that we go after Libya, and as usual, we made the situation worse and gave ISIL a new breeding ground because like with Iraq and Afghanistan, we had little to no after war plan, which you would've thought that we had already learned that lesson. We tried to mess around with Ukraine, and that one backfired on us, now we are after Syria as well, and again, Russia is backing the other side. If we blunder this one up, we could end up in an all out war against Russia, and I'd put money down on it that Hillary would lead us there, if she wins POTUS.

Now if Trump wins, he has no skin in the game for Syria, so I'm sure he'd rather save lives and face for America by backing out and letting Russia deal with the after war plan (that's how I see it unfolding).


Now back to your bombing the shit out of them right now stupid question.
Are we bombing the shit out of them right now? Hopefully. My point is, much of this could have been avoided if we had handled it better. Libya, Iraq, Syria and Afghanistan are breeding grounds now for ISIL. Great Job with your foreign policy US of A.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(10-27-2016, 07:34 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: Now you are taking 2 conversations and mashing them together as one.
I responded to Fred about her time as SOS. With you I'm talking only about IF ELECTED as POTUS.


I said originally that IF Elected Hillary would make the current war(s) worse or get us into a new one.

Hillary has not said she would bomb the shit out of anyone, she has said that she would put up No-Fly Zones, if elected.

She has nothing do with the current bombings of ISIL. She is not the POTUS, and nothing was done while she was SOS. And if you think I believe that as SOS she has that power, then you must believe that she gave the hit order on Bin Laden with out POTUS approval.    

If you were responding to fred about her time as Secretary of State why did you direct this response to me?

(10-27-2016, 04:25 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: As usual, Hillary had chances, but made the wrong call again.

Hillary did not ever on her term order the bombing or participate in ordering the bombing of ISIS/ISIL. Sell them weapons?? Most Likely.

She resigned in Feb 2013 as SOS.
We didn't start bombing ISIS/ISIL until Sept 2014.

Can you get your story straight before I move on to the rest of the thread?  

[Mike M (the other one)]

(10-28-2016, 01:14 AM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: If you were responding to fred about her time as Secretary of State why did you direct this response to me?


Can you get your story straight before I move on to the rest of the thread?  

Because when I responded to Fred and you, you added my comments directed towards fred to your argument.

My story is straight, get it together and stop blaming the Russians. Do you want to talk about her time as SOS or If she becomes POTUS? She didn't do have anything to do to with the bombings of ISIL while she was SOS.

[Belsnickel]

I see a lot of misunderstanding about the role of the Secretary of State in this thread. All around. This is kind of sad.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(10-28-2016, 02:12 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: Because when I responded to Fred and you, you added my comments directed towards fred to your argument.

My story is straight, get it together and stop blaming the Russians. Do you want to talk about her time as SOS or If she becomes POTUS? She didn't do have anything to do to with the bombings of ISIL while she was SOS.

You're completely confused as usual.  Completely.  Our conversation is completely serperate from anything you have discussed with fred.  I haven't used any comments directed toward fred.  I'm not a big fan of copying and pasting entire conversations, but . . . damn . . .

(10-20-2016, 02:02 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: I find it completely amusing that Hillary keeps blaming Russia for the Wiki Leaks. 
How does she know? She doesn't, she's just pointing fingers at anyone and everyone but herself, and if elected, she will take us to war.
She wants war so that the public is distracted by it, so she can slip her policies thru Congress with out us knowing. 

Now, even if it is Russia doing this to try to control the election (or at least interfere with it), then I will not blame Russia for that, after all they are just playing the game that we play against other countries (including them).

First, she is going to take us to war.

(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. 

But, we're already at war.

(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.

But, you meant a "new" war.  LOL

(10-20-2016, 09:00 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: 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?

(10-21-2016, 01:06 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: Let me see, bombing the shit out of ISIS vs supplying ISIS with weapons and money? Which path is better for the US?

Taking out their families? I'd suspect that he'd not target their families any more than Obama did with the Killing of Abdulrahman al-Awlaki (the 16 year old son of Anwar al-Awlaki, both USC's) 2 weeks after they killed his father. Ring any bells?

Former White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs: “I would suggest that you should have a far more responsible father if they are truly concerned about the well being of their children. I don’t think becoming an al-Qaeda jihadist terrorist is the best way to go about doing your business.”

That statement seems to me that the current administration doesn't seem too bothered by taking out family members.

(10-21-2016, 01:38 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: Is "bombing the shit out of them" taking "us" to war?  Yes or no. 

(10-21-2016, 02:41 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: He's referring to bombing the shit out of ISIS, which as you previously pointed out, we are already at war with.

(10-21-2016, 02:52 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: Really? Are we bombing the shit out of them now? Yes or no. 

(10-21-2016, 04:05 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: We are bombing them.
But then we turn around and do stupid shit like agreeing to safe passage of 9,000 ISIS soldiers if they will join the fight against Russia.

(10-21-2016, 04:22 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: If we are bombing them, then what did Trump mean when he stated he would "bomb the shit out of them"?  Did he mean he would continuing doing the same thing you think Hillary has failed to do, but just admitted "we" are doing?  Explain how Trump "bombing the shit out of them" is different than the bombing you claim "we" are currently doing. 

(10-27-2016, 04:25 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: As usual, Hillary had chances, but made the wrong call again.

Hillary did not ever on her term order the bombing or participate in ordering the bombing of ISIS/ISIL. Sell them weapons?? Most Likely.

She resigned in Feb 2013 as SOS.
We didn't start bombing ISIS/ISIL until Sept 2014.

I didn't say anything about Hillary as Secretary of State.  I didn't say anything about fred's comments.  I didn't add fred's comments or your comments to fred about anything related to Hillary as Secretary of State.  Again, you have your arguments with fred confused with your arguments with me because you don't have any idea what you're talking about.

(10-27-2016, 05:53 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: You might be the only person who knows less about this than Donald Trump. 

The Secretary of State decides who "we" bomb, where "we" bomb them, and when "we" bomb them?

If we are bombing them, are we bombing the shit out of them?

If Hillary didn't bomb them then, what makes you think she will bomb them later and "take us to war"?

(10-27-2016, 07:34 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: Now you are taking 2 conversations and mashing them together as one.
I responded to Fred about her time as SOS. With you I'm talking only about IF ELECTED as POTUS.


I said originally that IF Elected Hillary would make the current war(s) worse or get us into a new one.

Hillary has not said she would bomb the shit out of anyone, she has said that she would put up No-Fly Zones, if elected.

She has nothing do with the current bombings of ISIL. She is not the POTUS, and nothing was done while she was SOS. And if you think I believe that as SOS she has that power, then you must believe that she gave the hit order on Bin Laden with out POTUS approval.    
BTW Since we are talking about her time as SOS now, she did recommend to Obama that we go after Libya, and as usual, we made the situation worse and gave ISIL a new breeding ground because like with Iraq and Afghanistan, we had little to no after war plan, which you would've thought that we had already learned that lesson. We tried to mess around with Ukraine, and that one backfired on us, now we are after Syria as well, and again, Russia is backing the other side. If we blunder this one up, we could end up in an all out war against Russia, and I'd put money down on it that Hillary would lead us there, if she wins POTUS.

Now if Trump wins, he has no skin in the game for Syria, so I'm sure he'd rather save lives and face for America by backing out and letting Russia deal with the after war plan (that's how I see it unfolding).


Now back to your bombing the shit out of them right now stupid question.
Are we bombing the shit out of them right now? Hopefully. My point is, much of this could have been avoided if we had handled it
better. Libya, Iraq, Syria and Afghanistan are breeding grounds now for ISIL. Great Job with your foreign policy US of A.

Now back to the bombing the shit out of them bullshit.  You're afraid Hillary will take us to war.  But, we are already at war.  Trump says he will bomb the shit out of ISIS which means he is going to escalate our involvement; i.e. Trump will do the same thing you're afraid Hillary will do.  However, you aren't honest enough to admit it.  And if we are "hopefully" bombing the shit of out them now that obviates the need for Trump to bomb the shit out of them if we are already "hopefully" bombing the shit out of them.  Basically, you're just bitching for the sake of bitching.

And if we are "hopefully" bombing the shit out of ISIS and Libya, Iraq, Syria, and Afghanistan are breeding grounds for ISIS, don't we have to bomb the shit out of all those countries to bomb the shit out of ISIS?  And wouldn't that be "taking us to war"?  And haven't we already bombed the shit out of Iraq and Afghanistan?  How has that worked?  How would you have handled it differently that would have made things better when you know so much less than everyone involved?  You don't even know enough to understand how little you know.

(10-28-2016, 01:14 AM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: If you were responding to fred about her time as Secretary of State why did you direct this response to me?


Can you get your story straight before I move on to the rest of the thread?  

(10-28-2016, 02:12 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: Because when I responded to Fred and you, you added my comments directed towards fred to your argument.

My story is straight, get it together and stop blaming the Russians. Do you want to talk about her time as SOS or If she becomes POTUS? She didn't do have anything to do to with the bombings of ISIL while she was SOS.

As I just demonstrated, absolutely false.

So if she didn't have anything to do with bombing the shit out of ISIS and she hasn't said she would bomb the shit out of anyone (while Trump has said he will bomb the shit out of them), what the hell makes you think she will "take us to war" by not bombing the shit out of them and Trump won't take us to war by bombing the shit out of them?  Ridiculous.

[Dill]

(10-28-2016, 02:22 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: I see a lot of misunderstanding about the role of the Secretary of State in this thread. All around. This is kind of sad.

The secretary of state makes coffee takes notes and types letters for the president.  I think everyone is clear on that.

[Dill]

(10-27-2016, 07:34 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote:  SOS now, she did recommend to Obama that we go after Libya, and as usual, we made the situation worse and gave ISIL a new breeding ground because like with Iraq and Afghanistan, we had little to no after war plan, which you would've thought that we had already learned that lesson. We tried to mess around with Ukraine, and that one backfired on us, now we are after Syria as well, and again, Russia is backing the other side. If we blunder this one up, we could end up in an all out war against Russia, and I'd put money down on it that Hillary would lead us there, if she wins POTUS.

Now if Trump wins, he has no skin in the game for Syria, so I'm sure he'd rather save lives and face for America by backing out and letting Russia deal with the after war plan (that's how I see it unfolding).

This thread is already kind of complicated, but I wanted to chime in on one point.

Hillary pushed the Libya bombing for sure, but there is no reason to suppose that the US "made the situation worse" by saving Libyan lives. That did make the US a lot of friends there, and allowing Gadhafi to hang on was a plus for ISIS and Al Qaeda. The "breeding ground" was already there, thanks to Gadhafi and would have been much worse by the time he was finally ousted. The difficulty in rebuilding there has been that once the state was broken, control of regions went back to tribal affiliations who still have difficulty working together.  Right now, though, it looks like the two largest factions, the Tobruk government and the General National Congress, are working ever more closely together. They have had a cease fire for over a year. The mujahedeen radicals only control a few militias and little territory. As of now, the place is not like Syria, and not the "disastuh" as Trump.

[Dill]

(10-27-2016, 07:34 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: Now if Trump wins, he has no skin in the game for Syria, so I'm sure he'd rather save lives and face for America by backing out and letting Russia deal with the after war plan (that's how I see it unfolding).


Now back to your bombing the shit out of them right now stupid question.
Are we bombing the shit out of them right now? Hopefully. My point is, much of this could have been avoided if we had handled it better. Libya, Iraq, Syria and Afghanistan are breeding grounds now for ISIL. Great Job with your foreign policy US of A.

Regime change without nation building makes for broken states. George W. has made that very clear now, though his refusal to take nation building seriously in A-stan and Iraq has led conservatives to misread his disastrous inattention as just more nation building.

If Trump wins the election, what sort of policy could he pursue in Syria?

He doesn't believe in nation building. Assuming he could somehow destroy Al Raqqa without getting into an air war with Russia and Assad, why would Putin take care of rebuilding Syria after Trump gets out? How would the US "save face" by backing out of the mess?

And if no one rebuilds Syria, then we still have a broken state, a place for ISIS/AL NUSRA/Al Qaeda to reform in an even more virulent form. Unlikely they will view Russia as their number one enemy. 

Take out Al Qaeda--> take out Saddam--> take out ISIS --> Watch this space.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(10-29-2016, 10:13 PM)Dill Wrote: The secretary of state makes coffee takes notes and types letters for the president.  I think everyone is clear on that.

You forgot lie to the United Nations. 

Where was the Republican investigation of the lies that led to the deaths of > 4000?

I kid the Republicans. 

[*bfine32*]

(10-21-2016, 12:58 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: Well, you accused Fred of not providing counter points an hour after you failed to address any of my points, just suggesting it was "silly", so yea... it's reelvant.

That was before then bringing up Hillary, which was irrelevant to my points. Whether or not Democrats do something doesn't negate whether or not Republicans or an individual here are doing the same thing. They're not mutually exclusive

I would legitimately be interested in seeing a response from you that isn't just "this is silly", "this case has zero relevance", and "not sure how you missed the correlation". Like asking for a quote, I won't hold my breath.

PS: I'll give you a quote to reference on the morning after the election: Hillary wins with over 330 electoral votes.

(10-21-2016, 02:05 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: definitely doubted Trump's chances in the primary. It defied all logic and historical precedents. But he managed to win with a minority of support within his party. The difference now is that scientific polling shows him incapable of broadening his base and down in nearly every single swing state. He will absolutely not be President. The question isn't if, it's how bad will he lose?



I'll give you credited for trying to counter my very first post, but the reality is that after I provided a defense, you then ignored it and spent the last few posts chasing windmills. If you can't respond, that's good and all, but instead of trying to bring up Hillary and quote a mock thunder dome fight between candidates as an instance of when I was wrong, just admit it and go away. 

If you can actually respond to it, hats off to you. I'll be shocked. Honestly. If not, then by all means continue to be the official board troll (now that Lucie and the Neo-Nazi aren't here anymore). I'm sure there are a few threads out there you haven't tried to complain about the responses to despite not actually responding to the topic yourself. Just expect any responses from me to be "either address my post or troll elsewhere". 

You go Nostradamus.

(10-21-2016, 02:05 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: 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.

I feel a sig coming on

[THE Bigzoman]

Congratulations P N R.

I came here expecting salt like everywhere else. This is the first board where i'm disappointed.

[BmorePat87]

(11-09-2016, 04:20 PM)bfine32 Wrote: You go Nostradamus.


I feel a sig coming on

I was absolutely wrong. I assumed Hillary would become president after she got the most votes. She didn't.

I just hope Muslim and LBGT Americans are able to fight the promised assault on their rights. 

[*bfine32*]

(11-10-2016, 06:10 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: I was absolutely wrong. I assumed Hillary would become president after she got the most votes. She didn't.

Oh, so you didn't know how the Constitution works? That explains your mistake; it's all good. 

[BmorePat87]

(11-10-2016, 07:17 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Oh, so you didn't know how the Constitution works? That explains your mistake; it's all good. 

No, I just went with the game of averages. 91% of the time, the person with the most votes also won the electoral vote.

I'll give you a minute to close your Wikipedia tab on the Electoral College and pull up the page that will confirm that number. 

[*bfine32*]

(11-10-2016, 07:32 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: No, I just went with the game of averages. 91% of the time, the person with the most votes also won the electoral vote.

I'll give you a minute to close your Wikipedia tab on the Electoral College and pull up the page that will confirm that number. 

Oh that explains why you referenced Popular Vote in your declaration that can be quoted about how decisive Hill's victory would be.  

If you're playing averages wouldn't it be best to assume the person that gets the most electoral votes wins? I'm asking because my wiki page has crashed. 

[BmorePat87]

(11-10-2016, 07:58 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Oh that explains why you referenced Popular Vote in your declaration that can be quoted about how decisive Hill's victory would be.  

If you're playing averages wouldn't it be best to assume the person that gets the most electoral votes wins? I'm asking because my wiki page has crashed. 

No, I just now justified my response by saying I personally believed more people would vote for her. I figured it would amount to a decisive electoral victory but I was wrong. I was quite upset about it. 

As per your question (because you don't like it when people ignore them): 98% of the time. Since wikipedia crashed on you: Andrew Jackson got the most electoral votes in 1824 but did not get a majority of the available electoral votes. The House then selected John Quincy Adams. 

[*bfine32*]

(11-10-2016, 08:11 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: No, I just now justified my response by saying I personally believed more people would vote for her. I figured it would amount to a decisive electoral victory but I was wrong. I was quite upset about it. 

As per your question (because you don't like it when people ignore them): 98% of the time. Since wikipedia crashed on you: Andrew Jackson got the most electoral votes in 1824 but did not get a majority of the available electoral votes. The House then selected John Quincy Adams. 

Hey I was right even without wiki's help. Playing the numbers would have been best to go with EC votes.

Lesson learned. 

[BmorePat87]

(11-10-2016, 08:15 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Hey I was right even without wiki's help. Playing the numbers would have been best to go with EC votes.

Lesson learned. 

Glad I could help you understand something better.

Next time we have a thread where we discuss how the government works or the Constitution, I'm hoping you'll actually join in and don't not just make one post complaining that people aren't staying on topic. I always find it odd that you're nowhere to be found.