# Watched the debate



## RK3369 (Aug 12, 2013)

Was disappointed to see abc reporters declaring it a win for Hillary but then, said to myself, wtf did I expect from them anyhow? Imo, Hillary comes off as nothing but a polished liar do nothing political hack. Donald is rough around the edges but then, after 50 years of namby Pamby do nothing politicians, maybe that's what we need. I think he came out ahead.


----------



## Cait43 (Apr 4, 2013)

That is how the ABC reporters seen it..... For everyone that watched the will form their own opinion on who "won"......

Personally I did not watch the debate and won't be watching the others.........


----------



## Steve M1911A1 (Feb 6, 2008)

Well, Hillary was more articulate, and she stayed on-subject better than did The Donald.
But she patronized Trumpolini by continually referring to him as "Donald," while he remained polite and called her "Secretary Clinton."

I watched the "debate" as part of an assignment from a national-opinion organization. About five minutes in, I was already regretting that I had volunteered.
Well, that was an hour-and-a-quarter of my life wasted!


----------



## tony pasley (May 6, 2006)

The worst part is that both wants to deprive citizens of their rights without conviction, which is denying people on the no fly list their right to firearms. We all know how good those list are.


----------



## SouthernBoy (Jun 27, 2007)

Steve M1911A1 said:


> Well, Hillary was more articulate, and she stayed on-subject better than did The Donald.
> But she patronized Trumpolini by continually referring to him as "Donald," while he remained polite and called her "Secretary Clinton."
> 
> I watched the "debate" as part of an assignment from a national-opinion organization. About five minutes in, I was already regretting that I had volunteered.
> Well, that was an hour-and-a-quarter of my life wasted!


I was disappointed in Trump's delivery. He didn't articulate well, he rambled and went off on tangents, and he sorely lacked specificity. Score one win for Hillary.



tony pasley said:


> The worst part is that both wants to deprive citizens of their rights without conviction, which is denying people on the no fly list their right to firearms. We all know how good those list are.


Trump's response to that subject both surprised and disappointed me. Again, no articulation. He should have mentioned the fact that getting on that no fly list requires no court order. It is at the whim of some bureaucrap (deliberate spelling). This is VERY dangerous to our liberty.


----------



## Bisley (Aug 24, 2008)

Hilary had him on his heels, from the beginning. She managed to flip his switches, but he didn't blow up, to his credit. However, he spent entirely too much time talking about Donald Trump, because that is his favorite subject. I watched the whole thing, just to see if he survived it, and he did - but I won't watch the next one. I may check in on the last one, just to see if he does better in one where he doesn't have to debate the moderator, as well as keep track of all of HRC's misrepresentations.


----------



## boatdoc173 (Mar 15, 2014)

he needs to get more of slick willies girlfriends in the front row next time. they can all be working on popsicles.. she will stroke out


----------



## RK3369 (Aug 12, 2013)

well, nothing I saw or heard changed my mind one bit. Hillary would be the last person on the planet I would vote for for POTUS, with the possible exception of Obummer if he were eligible to run for another term. Thank God he's not. The fact that she is up there in front of the American public claiming how qualified and experienced she is and half of the American voting public is accepting of all her illegal acts, crimes and past criminal conduct is a sad statement as to where this country has declined to.

Admittedly, Trump is not a polished candidate, he has his bad points, probably has also done many not so nice things in his past business dealings, but imo, he's still a far better choice than Hillary and her cronies.


----------



## Uncle_Louie (Sep 1, 2016)

I watched it because my wife wanted to see it. I fell asleep thru most of it.


----------



## noway2 (Jun 18, 2011)

I doubt if opinions were changed much. It depends upon how many truly undecided voters there are. 

Trump was unprepared and it showed. This was a tactical mistake in a venue he should have known was going to be hostile. While he did speak a lot of truth, in retrospect he should have simply hammered at Jezebel as being weak, sick, dishonest, corrupt, etc. and been a rabid bull dog. The media response would have been better than he is getting now.

Hopefully he does better next time.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## AZdave (Oct 23, 2015)

I think the next debate is a town hall format. Donald (all his friends call him that) should relate to the audience better.

I will watch to see if madam secretary will fall down (literally ). ;-)


----------



## pblanc (Mar 3, 2015)

This entire election cycle has been a tragic farce. I don't expect the debates to be any different.


----------



## Backlighting (Jul 2, 2012)

Hillary is a vile & corrupt champion of big government. She should do America a favor and just disappear...and take Bill the pervert with her.


----------



## desertman (Aug 29, 2013)

Christ, I just do not know where to begin? I hit the "mute" button every time that pathological, congenital lying bitch spoke. I just can't take the sound of her shrill pathetic voice. Unfortunately Trump had many opportunities to take her down but failed especially when it came to cyber security. What better opportunity than that to bring that bitch down? Then there was the "law and order" question. That bitch deliberately destroyed evidence after it was subpoenaed. Which should have led to obstruction of justice charges. Yet by some coincidence her scumbag husband happens to meet on the tarmac with Loretta Lynch for a secret meeting to talk about grandchildren. Surprise, surprise the FBI refuses to recommend an indictment. These people must really think we are that stupid? The absolute contempt that those two criminals have for the American public is beyond belief. That criminal lying bitch belongs in jail. How any one can vote for her is beyond me?

There is a whole laundry list of corrupt and tawdry behavior involving both the Clinton's. Yet Lester Holt was too focused on bringing Trump down by constantly interrupting him as he answered questions, questioning his "birther" stance, and initial tepid support for the war in Iraq. I use the word "tepid" as Trump when asked about his support of the war only replied "I guess so". But regardless, those two issues are chicken shit when compared to all of the crap this country faces today. They pale in comparison to all of the lies and corruption that the Clinton's have been involved in throughout their entire political careers. Including arms deals to Clinton foundation donors. She once claimed that they were flat broke when they left the "Outhouse". Yet the Clinton's now have a net worth of almost a quarter of a billion dollars. No one pays that much money for half hour speaking fees and not expect to get something in return. She sold out this country while she was secretary of state for her own personal and financial gain. As bad a candidate Trump may be. This woman has no business running for President of the United States. Let alone getting elected. May God help us all if she succeeds.

This is no time to stay home on election day regardless of what our opinion of Trump may be. We must all go out and vote for him. I'd vote for a steaming pile of dog shit before I'd vote for that bitch or any other Democrat for that matter.



> Hillary Clinton Oversaw US Arms Deals to Clinton...
> Mother Jones...
> May 28, 2015 ... ... to 16 of those countries-a 143 percent increase over the same time ... All of these countries donated to the Clinton Foundation and ... Clinton's State Department have delivered between $54 million and ... of dollars in payments to the Clinton family, according to foundation and State Department records.


----------



## RK3369 (Aug 12, 2013)

desertman said:


> This is no time to stay home on election day regardless of what our opinion of Trump may be. We must all go out and vote for him. I'd vote for a steaming pile of dog shit before I'd vote for that bitch or any other Democrat for that matter.


absolutely. If I were in Chicago, I'd go vote many times.


----------



## paratrooper (Feb 1, 2012)

I watched it cause my wife wanted me to. And, I had _plans_ for later that night, so I wanted to stay on her good side. :smt033

Anyways, here we are, the most powerful country on the planet, and this is what we have to choose from? 

I tend to fall back to my "Would I want to sit down and have a beer with either" test? The answer to that is *NO!*


----------



## RK3369 (Aug 12, 2013)

Problem is, the system is ruled by big money and the political elite. The common man has no chance to rise to the top, even if he or she were the populist favorite. Look at the Republican party. Half of them do not want to accept Trump because he is not a part of the party higherarchy. He represents something from the outside that they are having a lot of difficulty controlling, which is why many have stated they will not support him. Our only chance is to get the elite of both parties thrown out and start over fresh. Not sure how that will happen without a total revolution, but it appears to be the only way anything will ever change. Even if Trump is elected, do we really think much is going to change in Washington? Hardly, the political bosses of both parties will fight him tooth and nail on everything that he wants to do, because for them, it represents a loss of power and control.

I hope I am long gone before the end of this once great nation happens, but make no mistake, unless things in Washington change, it will happen eventually. The present model is not sustainable.


----------



## Steve M1911A1 (Feb 6, 2008)

paratrooper said:


> ...I tend to fall back to my "Would I want to sit down and have a beer with either" test? The answer to that is *NO!*


Strangely enough, although he has been an atrocious President, I would gladly sit down with Obama over a couple of beers, some wine, or even coffee.
Obama comes across as intelligent, thoughtful, and friendly. That might make for some good conversation.
Of course, he also continually proves himself to be naïve and arrogant, so I might quickly become disappointed...


----------



## Boo (Sep 14, 2016)

This election is of vague interest to this furriner, I was wondering if Trump would pick up votes from those who identify with him as not being slick and politically articulate. Clinton does come across as a bit of a political robot but maybe that's what people want. Anyway, good luck America, I can't see that foreign policy will change much no matter who wins.


----------



## paratrooper (Feb 1, 2012)

Steve M1911A1 said:


> Strangely enough, although he has been an atrocious President, I would gladly sit down with Obama over a couple of beers, some wine, or even coffee.
> Obama comes across as intelligent, thoughtful, and friendly. That might make for some good conversation.
> Of course, he also continually proves himself to be naïve and arrogant, so I might quickly become disappointed...


Yes, if he wasn't POTUS, I do think I could stand to be around him for a while. Not on an everyday basis mind you, but if he was the friend of a friend, that would be okay.


----------



## Steve M1911A1 (Feb 6, 2008)

Boo said:


> This election is of vague interest to this furriner, I was wondering if Trump would pick up votes from those who identify with him as not being slick and politically articulate. Clinton does come across as a bit of a political robot but maybe that's what people want. Anyway, good luck America, I can't see that foreign policy will change much no matter who wins.


According to at least one political pundit, Trump already has enough Electoral College votes to win the election.

Education for a Foreigner:
Our Founders, having a clear understanding of Bentham's Utilitarianism and the tyranny of the majority that it would create, gave us an indirect voting system that does its best to accommodate the wishes of the political minority. Thus we are not a democracy, nor strictly a republic, but rather a kind of democratic republic.
In each of the several states, a separate popular-democratic election is held to choose a President. The statewide winner of that election receives the use of the votes of that state's delegates (in Washington State's case, 17 of them) to a meeting called the Electoral College.
In that convocation, each state's delegates vote as their state's people have told them to. If one presidential candidate does not receive the majority of the delegates' votes, then the delegates are free to vote again and again, according to their own political beliefs, until one candidate or the other achieves a clear majority.
While most states require the winner-takes-all model, a few states permit their electors to be apportioned according to the popular vote received by each candidate, and some states even permit their electors to freely "vote their conscience" from the get-go.


----------



## RK3369 (Aug 12, 2013)

Regards Obama, He's absolutely very intelligent and eloquent. He just happens to have the wrong idea of how this nation should progress, IMo. It appears that he has never really had to work hard for anything, so he doesn't much appear to be worrying about how to protect it. Instead, it appears he evolved through the side of the "takers" in our system, rather than the "makers".


----------



## Cait43 (Apr 4, 2013)




----------



## RK3369 (Aug 12, 2013)

You know, from a personal standpoint, what difference does it make if trump releases his returns or not? As long as he stayed within the law and paid appropriately, even if he actually paid nothing because he uses great tax attorney's and CPA's, what's wrong with that? It's not his fault that he may not have paid a lot of tax simply because he's rich. The problem may be with the advantages within the tax laws, but as long as he didn't evade taxes, who cares? Hillary is simply trying to shame him because he has a lot of money and maybe didn't pay any federal tax because he positioned himself to take maximum advantage of the tax laws? Wouldn't we all like to be able to do that?

And as far as paying appropriate taxes, there still seems to be a lot of questions about all the money funneling through the Clinton Foundation. Maybe the IRS might want to check that out if they think someone is not paying the appropriate tax.


----------



## SouthernBoy (Jun 27, 2007)

Steve M1911A1 said:


> Strangely enough, although he has been an atrocious President, I would gladly sit down with Obama over a couple of beers, some wine, or even coffee.
> Obama comes across as intelligent, thoughtful, and friendly. That might make for some good conversation.
> Of course, he also continually proves himself to be naïve and arrogant, so I might quickly become disappointed...


I don't find him all that intelligent (read that as both intelligent and knowledgeable), thoughtful, or friendly. He is definitely not someone I would want to be around. People like him are not only elite statists, but arrogant as well. I've know their types most of my life. I much prefer a different mindset than what he presents.


----------



## SouthernBoy (Jun 27, 2007)

RK3369 said:


> Regards Obama, He's absolutely very intelligent and eloquent. He just happens to have the wrong idea of how this nation should progress, IMo. It appears that he has never really had to work hard for anything, so he doesn't much appear to be worrying about how to protect it. Instead, it appears he evolved through the side of the "takers" in our system, rather than the "makers".


Obama is nothing more than a puppet who's strings are being pulled by sinister forces behind the scenes. He was the perfect useful idiot. He is black, liberal, charismatic to a degree, and can articulate from a monitor pretty well. In a nutshell, he was what the Soro's types have been grooming and waiting for to smoke the American citizens into the haze of socialism, one-worldism, and tyrannical control.


----------



## SouthernBoy (Jun 27, 2007)

RK3369 said:


> You know, from a personal standpoint, what difference does it make if trump releases his returns or not? As long as he stayed within the law and paid appropriately, even if he actually paid nothing because he uses great tax attorney's and CPA's, what's wrong with that? It's not his fault that he may not have paid a lot of tax simply because he's rich. The problem may be with the advantages within the tax laws, but as long as he didn't evade taxes, who cares? Hillary is simply trying to shame him because he has a lot of money and maybe didn't pay any federal tax because he positioned himself to take maximum advantage of the tax laws? Wouldn't we all like to be able to do that?
> 
> And as far as paying appropriate taxes, there still seems to be a lot of questions about all the money funneling through the Clinton Foundation. Maybe the IRS might want to check that out if they think someone is not paying the appropriate tax.


I do my damnedest to pay as few taxes as possible. For the past sixteen years, part of my income has been tax free. If I could pay no taxes at all, I'd be quite happy. Thanks to AlGore, I am forced to pay taxes on my SS allotment. That bastard cast the deciding vote on that issue when he was VP.


----------



## pblanc (Mar 3, 2015)

Obama can perhaps be charming at times, but he is incredibly arrogant, and when it comes to people who do not agree with his world view he is petty and vindictive. I doubt that I could stomach being around him for an hour.


----------



## RK3369 (Aug 12, 2013)

personally, I don't agree that social security benefits should be subject to tax. Hell, we never got a break on our federal income taxes by being able to itemize the amount of FICA or Medicare TAx paid each year, so why should it now be taxable. Kinda like an IRA. YOu get a current deduction for your contributions but you pay tax on it when you retire, that seems fair. But taxing social security now based on your total other income seems completely unfair to me when you never were given any tax benefit for paying it to begin with. Just another means to take more from people who have something and give it to those who don't want to do anything for it. More socialism. When I retire, I think I may be in the same situation, having to pay Fed tax on the social security I receive, simply because I was diligent and put money aside for my retirement. Thanks to the lawmakers for rewarding me for doing what they told us all we should be doing for years, that being, get yourself ready for retirement by putting away as much as possible. When I'm lying in the bed in the nursing home, I'm not going to be happy about the guy in the bed next to me who has Medicaid paying for his care while I have to pay for my own until my money runs out. You can thank the liberals for that one.

Kind of like the way this country works now. If you can pay, you pay, if you can't pay, you get the same or better stuff for free. I have copayments, deductibles and coinsurance to pay for my health care every time I go to the doctor or get a prescription filled. Medicaid people get the same care and don't pay a damn nickel for any of it, so who's the fool? Me I guess.


----------



## SouthernBoy (Jun 27, 2007)

RK3369 said:


> personally, I don't agree that social security benefits should be subject to tax. Hell, we never got a break on our federal income taxes by being able to itemize the amount of FICA or Medicare TAx paid each year, so why should it now be taxable. Kinda like an IRA. YOu get a current deduction for your contributions but you pay tax on it when you retire, that seems fair. But taxing social security now based on your total other income seems completely unfair to me when you never were given any tax benefit for paying it to begin with. Just another means to take more from people who have something and give it to those who don't want to do anything for it. More socialism. When I retire, I think I may be in the same situation, having to pay Fed tax on the social security I receive, simply because I was diligent and put money aside for my retirement. Thanks to the lawmakers for rewarding me for doing what they told us all we should be doing for years, that being, get yourself ready for retirement by putting away as much as possible. When I'm lying in the bed in the nursing home, I'm not going to be happy about the guy in the bed next to me who has Medicaid paying for his care while I have to pay for my own until my money runs out. You can thank the liberals for that one.
> 
> Kind of like the way this country works now. If you can pay, you pay, if you can't pay, you get the same or better stuff for free. I have copayments, deductibles and coinsurance to pay for my health care every time I go to the doctor or get a prescription filled. Medicaid people get the same care and don't pay a damn nickel for any of it, so who's the fool? Me I guess.


Right.

I am not a fan of Social Security. I would much rather have received the 15% the government stole from me and my employers and been allowed to invest it as I saw fit for me. Years ago, I wrote two little C programs to factor component interest and found that if I had gotten that 15% over 45 years of working, I would have been able to retire with nearly three million dollars. I would have had a very nice retirement income from that without even touching the corpus.

As for nursing homes and long term care, both my wife and I have a long term insurance policy to cover that and to help protect our assets. It ain't cheap.


----------



## desertman (Aug 29, 2013)

Yeah, I too would love to sit down and have a beer with Obama. Only so I could spit it out into his face.


----------



## RK3369 (Aug 12, 2013)

SouthernBoy said:


> Right.
> 
> I am not a fan of Social Security. I would much rather have received the 15% the government stole from me and my employers and been allowed to invest it as I saw fit for me. Years ago, I wrote two little C programs to factor component interest and found that if I had gotten that 15% over 45 years of working, I would have been able to retire with nearly three million dollars. I would have had a very nice retirement income from that without even touching the corpus.


except you forgot about one thing, if you and I didn't pay in all our working lives, who was going to pay for all the "naer do well" fools who have been collecting disability benefits all of their lives with paying very little into the system? Somebody gotta pay the bills. As I said, if you can pay, you pay, if you can't pay, you get it for nothing. Sounds like communism to me, but then, we're a capitalist democracy, aren't we???


----------



## SouthernBoy (Jun 27, 2007)

RK3369 said:


> *except you forgot about one thing*, if you and I didn't pay in all our working lives, who was going to pay for all the "naer do well" fools who have been collecting disability benefits all of their lives with paying very little into the system? Somebody gotta pay the bills. As I said, if you can pay, you pay, if you can't pay, you get it for nothing. Sounds like communism to me, but then, we're a capitalist democracy, aren't we???


I didn't forget that. I have had an idea about how this could all work. It's just that it will never happen so it's only a pipe dream.


----------



## RK3369 (Aug 12, 2013)

probably correct. Social Security is just another government Ponzi scheme. Eventually it will fail. Just hope I'm long gone when it does.


----------

