martin wrote:

Knickoftime wrote:

martin wrote:Definite it how you will but having the focus of the middle and lower portions of our country and making it a priority as a vehicle to move this country forward would do wonders.

What does that look like, pragmatically?

We've challenged Trump supporters to articulate this policies in this thread, so I think it's fair to ask what specific 'anti-establishment' policies that can get through Congress are we talking about?

Meant to get to this last night but was all tied up flipping between debate and Knicks.

Don't mix 2 things together. There are anti-establishment policies and then there is the prospect of getting them through Congress and those are very separate issues and challenges.

Obama didn't anticipate and take on the challenge part as well as he should have, and part of the problem is convincing the Tea Partiers that change is not possible without their help, gotta get them under the umbrella even if exact policy differences are clear.

I'm not trying to relitigate the Obama administration and for the sake of moving an interesting conversation forward I'll remove that qualification.

What does an articulated 'anti-establishment' policy look like, specifically?

GoNyGoNyGo wrote:

fishmike wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

GoNyGoNyGo wrote:Last night was another disgrace. We all lose in this election.

DJT could not answer with any specifics and HRC avoided every single question where she was vulnerable and robotically when to her talking points all night long. DJT just mindlessly rambled from one topic to another spewing the same lines over and over again...so bad, so bad.

Two topics stood out for me with HRC. Her Clinton Foundation answer was just plain awful. Can someone say guilty as charged? Then when DJT talked about the Chicago Rally incident, she did not even try deny she involvement and changed the subject so fast...so fast. To be honest, DJT missed so many opportunities to challenge her and then just started babbling...OMG!

We are in so much trouble...so much.

Guilty as charged of what?! What law did her foundation break? You may not like the fact that she got countries like Saudi Arabia to spend money on HIV treatment and natural disaster victims, but it's not a crime. (She should have spun this as a good thing, though. She got these countries to help a lot of victims! Would you rather these people just died of AIDS?) Remember, the Clintons take zero dollars from the foundation. The foundation just gets treatment to people. It has a higher rating than the American Red Cross.
And on your first point, you're holding Hillary to a higher standard than any other politicians. ALL politicians will change the topic to what they want to talk about and rely on talking points.

attacking the Clinton foundation is a non starter. One of the best and most effective philanthropy orgs in the world. At the beginning of this debate I was telling my wife that despite his idiocy I was voting for Gary, simply to build up his vote count, and living in a very blue state I am not concerned about Trump winning. I only watched the first half, I will catch the 2nd half tonight or tomorrow, but I was very impressed with her answers and ability to articulate on several points. This was the first time I saw her as presidential. I agree Bonn... can you think of a better thing than taking money from those "terrible countries" and using it for good? Return the funds to Saudi Arabia? Why so it can go to "freedom fighters???"

A few things jumped out at me. 1) the moderator was amazing. He really focused the whole event and held the candidates to real answers. 2) Hillary impressed. I thought she offered the most substance on policy and avoided most of the BS, and she appeared very presidential. 3) the sad state of the GOP. Im a child of the 70s and 80s (born in 73). My father was repub, mom was dem and policy was discussed at dinner. Dad was a big Reagan guy. If you were to label my politics I think moderate democrat best fits. Socially I am liberal, but I prefer smaller more conservative gov. In any case I believe the GOP is very important and conservative values are a big part of this country and should be recognized, respected and represented. What Trump stands for is so abysmal and deflating it's simply sad.

I don't agree about the CF but that is fine.

I am a bit older than you. Please realize that both parties are a disgrace in my view. Getting worse each cycle. IMO, Trump is not even a Republican. He has shifted his issues so many times, it is ridicluous. HRC is more right than he is on some issues. MY issue with her, is her absolute corruptness, IMO.

He is a sad candidate for a once great party.

Vmart wrote:This whole thing is rigged. I wouldn't be surprised if the Clintons and Trumps are in cahoots. Hillary is so disliked that they had to create a candidate that is more disliked. From media to all the way to the election is rigged stance by Trump. What better way to legitimize something than say what it really is massive rigging from top to bottom.

fishmike wrote:

Vmart wrote:This whole thing is rigged. I wouldn't be surprised if the Clintons and Trumps are in cahoots. Hillary is so disliked that they had to create a candidate that is more disliked. From media to all the way to the election is rigged stance by Trump. What better way to legitimize something than say what it really is massive rigging from top to bottom.

Also Santa and Satan are spelled with the same letters and have never been seen together.

I never understood why people are so quick to dismiss the unthinkable. Government has created wars based on false evidences. Anything is possible you know that as fact. You think an election can't be rigged.

Vmart wrote:

fishmike wrote:

Vmart wrote:This whole thing is rigged. I wouldn't be surprised if the Clintons and Trumps are in cahoots. Hillary is so disliked that they had to create a candidate that is more disliked. From media to all the way to the election is rigged stance by Trump. What better way to legitimize something than say what it really is massive rigging from top to bottom.

Also Santa and Satan are spelled with the same letters and have never been seen together.

I never understood why people are so quick to dismiss the unthinkable. Government has created wars based on false evidences. Anything is possible you know that as fact. You think an election can't be rigged.

There is possibility and there is probability. While it may be possible, how probable is that scenario to you?

Knickoftime wrote:

GoNyGoNyGo wrote:I don't agree about the CF but that is fine.

HRC is more right than he is on some issues. MY issue with her, is her absolute corruptness, IMO.

Let me hold you to the same standard you say you hold HRC to.

Whenever asked genuine questions about the "corruption" you almost always ultimately (and can i say "robotically") pass.
In My Opinion - there is a long line of corrupt acts and lies, you can choose to research it or not.

"Yep. they do work for Aids patients and that is commendable. Nothing else to see here, move on" isn't an answer.
You are too funny. IT's called sarcasm!!.... I was doing exactly what she did, you are correct. Funny how you see when I do it...that was my point.

"I don't agree about the CF but that is fine" isn't an answer.
Yes, it is. If you WANT to learn, you will go seek out the truth. I am not going to do the research for you. I respectfully disagreed with FM. If he wants to pursue it, that is up to him to consider. As I said, the Aids work is commendable but not all is rosy . https://theintercept.com/2016/02/22/saudi-christmas-present/

They are two bit opinions. Frankly, that is your two bit opinion.

You, to paraphrase, don't even try to answer and quickly change the subject. I believed FM's questions to be rhetorical.
Then you attempt to draw a conclusion from HRC not spending debate time defending herself from something she hasn't been charged with. she could have condemned the acts in the videos at least.

You say you think both candidates are awful, I think you should maybe look into the mirror and ask yourself what can of voter you are.
What CAN? What does that even mean?

When it acceptable for you to ignore the rule of law and any sense of intellectual decorum and convict people who aren't charged with anything, you (and everyone else) get the candidates you deserve.

The rule of law - really? I am in no position to enforce the rule of law other than with my vote.

BY "and everyone else", I assume you are part of that too?

The U.S. doesn't have a politics problem, it has an electorate problem. Because we don't want to be better than advancing theories based not even on eye witness testimony, but solely on personal conclusions based purely on speculation and innuendo.
Its called reading and research and an open mind. Should we blindly accept the National Enquirer story? Its based on eye witness testimony apparently.

Some people in a democratic field office said some stupid and troubling things. They've been held accountable, and the matter should be followed-up to its logical conclusion and I hope it will be.

Yep, some people. One at the highest level of a HRC superpAc and his main agitator on the ground. Logical conclusion is this, nothing will happen to anyone higher up as they have the plausible deniability in place - the double blind.

20 times in a recent under oath questioning about her email server with Judical Watch, HRC said "i dont recall" - yeah right.

But we should be better than assuming anything else that we actually don't know. That's one of the pillars of our way of life.

Really? We should assume that all they do is right and rosy? Do you hold DJT to the same standards? Did you hold GWB to those standards? I think we should question their authority especially when they don't appear to live up to the same laws that we must. that is the people's role in a democracy after all or so I think.

Vmart wrote:

fishmike wrote:

Vmart wrote:This whole thing is rigged. I wouldn't be surprised if the Clintons and Trumps are in cahoots. Hillary is so disliked that they had to create a candidate that is more disliked. From media to all the way to the election is rigged stance by Trump. What better way to legitimize something than say what it really is massive rigging from top to bottom.

Also Santa and Satan are spelled with the same letters and have never been seen together.

I never understood why people are so quick to dismiss the unthinkable. Government has created wars based on false evidences. Anything is possible you know that as fact. You think an election can't be rigged.

For one, "anything is possible" is not a fact. It is the opposite of fact. There ARE things that are objectively true and not true.

The Earth is BILLIONS of years old, despite the fact that many people believe it is a few thousand.

To say "anything is possible" is to essentially reject reason, logic, knowledge, education, scientific method and debate. It is saying 'forget about all those things, they are pointless, because despite what you think you've learned, anything is possible therefore NOTHING is worth concluding.'

It is the becoming the mantra of those who no interest in any of those things, who only want to perceive the world as entirely crafted in their own mind, without letting knowledge and reason influence them.

You just suggested the Democratic and Republican party are in concert with one another to rig the election for Clinton. Undeterred by rational thought and common sense, the internal logic of your own argument doesn't make sense.

If the system is so rigged, this secret uni-party you suggest exists wouldn't need to put up a ridiculous candidate like Trump. This all-powerful entity could have buried all negative stories about Clinton. They would manipulate the polls to bury the notion Clinton is viewed unfavorably.

But your own logic, the overlords who control all things could simply manipulate the media and all things to make Hillary Clinton look like a universally appealing candidate, because ANYTHING IS POSSIBLE.

Remember?

GoNyGoNyGo wrote:
In My Opinion - there is a long line of corrupt acts and lies, you can choose to research it or not.
.
You are too funny. IT's called sarcasm!!.... I was doing exactly what she did, you are correct. Funny how you see when I do it...that was my point.

No, as I clearly stated, I am holding YOU to your standard for her. YOU just repeated what I said but tried to derive the opposite meaning from it. You can answer or not, that's your right. But it is fair to reflect your own standard back to you when you do.

I believed FM's questions to be rhetorical.

I believe you were asked the same questions by others. I'm more than willing to concede to them if they were rhetorical or not, but they struck me as genuine and straightforward.

she could have condemned the acts in the videos at least.

To what end? C'mon, don't be politically naive. Nobody is suggesting Clinton isn't a political animal.

To somehow appease people that are prone to speculate about larger meaning of the video? C'mon, that's a rhetorical game. There was no upside to giving voice to something she hasn't even been accused of. You know that.

The rule of law - really? I am in no position to enforce the rule of law other than with my vote.

Really.

You're asserting she has broken laws and the law says she has not and in some cases has not even been charged with. That's ignoring the rule of law.

Its called reading and research and an open mind. Should we blindly accept the National Enquirer story? Its based on eye witness testimony apparently.

No, having an "open mind" doesn't mean concluding someone was involved in something they haven't been connected with because the idea they might fits into a pre-conceived profile you've crafted.

That is the opposite of an open mind. That is confirmation bias.

That people can't distinguish the two is the problem I'm citing.

If you'd like to name the person cited in the National Enquirer, I'll gladly consider his or her testimony.

Yep, some people. One at the highest level of a HRC superpAc and his main agitator on the ground. Logical conclusion is this, nothin will happen to anyone higher up as they have the plausible deniability in place - the double blind.

That anyone higher up was involved is not a logical conclusion, it is an assumption.

People admitting-bragging about certain acts on video when they don't know they aren't being recorded doesn't mean any more than bragging was occurring, correct? It does not prove an act, or have I misunderstood that edict?

I think you and I would agree with this, however - just bragging about disqualifies the braggart(s) and the boasts should be properly investigated.

Really? We should assume that all they do is right and rosy?

No. I neither said nor implied that.

Do you hold DJT to the same standards?

Yes.

Did you hold GWB to those standards?

Yes.

I think we should question their authority especially when they don't appear to live up to the same laws that we must. that is the people's role in a democracy after all or so I think.

Again, you're quoting law and at the same time reject the findings of the law as if that's irrelevant.

Works both ways.

JesseDark wrote:My favorite line of the night was Clinton "..cause he'd rather have a puppet." Trump "you're the puppet you're the puppet."
That hombre is done.

I play that game with my GFs little nephew! You stink....No you stink...No YOU stink...ad infinitum.

WaltLongmire wrote:

Knickoftime wrote:Just for fun...

Tweet was deleted or there was problem with the URL:

https://twitter.com/TheFix/status/789090575249125376

Worth watching for the attempted recovery at the end.

Instead of "Yup" in that tweet, it should have been "He knows."

We all watch sports...we know what how someone who believes he/she lost, looks after an even.

Not hard to figure out who won based on end of the debate reactions...he had the taste of defeat in his mouth after it ended.

It was amazing to me to watch Trump after the debate ended. Hilary made her way to Chris Wallace to shake hands. Trump stood and steamed at his podium for a long time. He was on stage, alone, until his family came to his rescue and surrounded him, and you could tell by his body language that he was having a meltdown moment and couldn't do anything about it while cameras were pointing at him.