nah I agree with that. I wasn't saying the concerns aren't legitimate, but it's ignorance and gullibility to think the answer is Donald Trump.
USA Politics
- Thread starter Genghis Khan
- Start date
When a US political party has spent 50 years grooming an ignorant and gullible populace, they shouldn't be surprised when a bigger conman steals their audience.
Travis The Dragon
AFTERGLOW!!!
Call Sean Hannity! CALL HIM!!!
Again, totally agreed. More than anyone else, I think the Republicans who spent the last 8 years trying to frame Obama as a threat to America with some ulterior motive are directly responsible for Trump. I have very little sympathy for most of the Never Trump Republicans for that reason.
I couldn't believe that he
- Used Sean Hannity as a source
- Tried to place anecdotal evidence over a recorded interview that can be found instantly online
Michael Moore says Donald Trump won the debate. I think he's saying this stuff for publicity and probably wants Trump to win. It would be beneficial for him because he can make a really good movie about it.
Sean Hannity is a hack and a shill, just like any other pundit - left or right. To be fair, Hannity is a fairly vile shill (not as bad as some). And yeah, that was hilarious.
It was one of several moments where I felt like I was watching an SNL skit rather than a real debate.
What did y'all think of Lester Holt as a moderator? Some stuff going around about him being tougher on Trump than Hillary. There definitely seemed to be a bias there, even if they were legitimate questions (for the most part, I still think the birther question was a waste of time). I thought he did OK all things considered.
What did y'all think of Lester Holt as a moderator? Some stuff going around about him being tougher on Trump than Hillary. There definitely seemed to be a bias there, even if they were legitimate questions (for the most part, I still think the birther question was a waste of time). I thought he did OK all things considered.
Yeah, it's obvious he was biased against Trump but it'd be pretty hard to find someone neutral when the candidates are so different.
The Flash
Dennis Wilcock did 9/11
One argument is that Hillary will be a continuation of what's wrong with the establishment while Donald won't get to do things the way he wants because of how anti-establishment he is.
This not a plausible reason to vote for Trump (there isn't one), but it could be reason to refrain from voting for either.
This not a plausible reason to vote for Trump (there isn't one), but it could be reason to refrain from voting for either.
Moderators should be tough on candidates who tell lies. Hillary lies, sure. But her lies tend to be omissions or exaggerations, or even misconstruing information. Donald Trump fibs, and a good moderator would do things like play the clip of Trump supporting the Iraq War, or post numbers and stuff like that. There's a huge push for moderators to be "neutral" which I think is code for "fact free".
The facts support certain sides or theories. Reality has a bias all its own, and reality is certainly very anti-Trump.
I liked that Holt pushed him on the Iraq war subject. I don't mind the moderators acting more as fact checkers.
I think anti establishment is a grass roots cause. Having an anti establishment president isn't going to achieve much, that sort of thing starts at the local level. But that's a longer and less attractive process, so it's never going to happen.
Not voting for either is very short sighted though. The supreme court picks should be a good enough reason to vote for one of them, no matter what side you're on. Whoever becomes the next president is only there for four years, supreme court judges are there for life.
I think anti establishment is a grass roots cause. Having an anti establishment president isn't going to achieve much, that sort of thing starts at the local level. But that's a longer and less attractive process, so it's never going to happen.
Yep. And with a lot of the US Supreme Court getting very old (Kennedy, Ginsburg, Thomas) there is a chance to sway the court for a generation one way or another.
Collin
Chasing Ponce De Leon's Phantoms
I don't see what the big problem is with Trump and the whole Iraq war thing. Who cares if he supported it or not, he was a private citizen who had no say whatsoever. Meanwhile Hillary voted for it.
But yeah the both lie. A lot!
The big problem isn't that Trump did or didn't support the Iraq War. The problem is that Trump's primary foreign policy "credential" is toted that he knew it was a bad idea and never supported it, thus making him superior to pretty much everyone in government at the time. The big problem is that such is a lie, he was just as caught up in war fever and everyone else. It's an attempt to rewrite history.
Hillary at least admits she made a mistake - lots of Republicans still think the Iraq War was a good thing.
Collin
Chasing Ponce De Leon's Phantoms
Can you show us the quote in which he says it was a good thing.
Edit: My main point is that Hillary makes the worst possible decisions in the worst situations. (Voting for the war, Bengahzi, email scandal, etc.) It will only get worse when she is given more power.
Last edited:
http://time.com/4409827/donald-trump-mike-pence-hillary-clinton-iraq/
This is where Trump says that Hillary has bad judgement because she supported Iraq originally. The implication is that he had good judgement because he said otherwise.
You know, most people voted for the war. I am not going to say that is the worst possible thing. Benghazi wasn't an unreasonable chain of events - a tragedy, not incompetence. The emails was stupid, for sure, for reasons we've gone over, and I agree that was a poor decision.
But the worst decisions? Come on. There are way worse decisions that she could have made, especially as Secretary of State, where she was quite highly regarded in the international community. I think we all know that Donald Trump will make the worst decisions. He's already promised to.
This is where Trump says that Hillary has bad judgement because she supported Iraq originally. The implication is that he had good judgement because he said otherwise.
You know, most people voted for the war. I am not going to say that is the worst possible thing. Benghazi wasn't an unreasonable chain of events - a tragedy, not incompetence. The emails was stupid, for sure, for reasons we've gone over, and I agree that was a poor decision.
But the worst decisions? Come on. There are way worse decisions that she could have made, especially as Secretary of State, where she was quite highly regarded in the international community. I think we all know that Donald Trump will make the worst decisions. He's already promised to.
Forostar
Ancient Mariner
Trump lies much more. If you don't want to see that, then you don't mind how much you want to be fooled by your president. Check the fact checker I posted recently, to see the differences.