Help support WeTheArmed.com by visiting our sponsors.

Author Topic: 2016 Presidential Debate  (Read 8770 times)

MTK20

  • Senior Contributor
  • *****
  • Posts: 8057
  • Mind of a philosopher, mouth of a sailor.

  • Offline
Re: 2016 Presidential Debate
« Reply #25 on: September 28, 2016, 10:33:30 am »
http://www.dailywire.com/news/9458/trump-has-4-giant-advantages-tonight-ben-shapiro?utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=social&utm_content=news&utm_campaign=twitterbenshapiro# 

A little late in seeing this one, but now in hindsight, how do you believe this debate panned out? I was able to see some highlights from it, but overall it seemed uninteresting. Which is strange, because I typically enjoy debates  :shrug.
Texas
Do we forget that cops were primarily still using 6 Shot Revolvers well through the mid 80's? It wasn't until after 1986 that most departments then relented and went to autos.
Capacity wasn't really an issue then... and honestly really it's not even an issue now.
Ray Chapman, used to say that the 125-grain Magnum load’s almost magical stopping power was the only reason to load .357 instead of .38 Special +P ammunition into a fighting revolver chambered for the Magnum round. I agree. - Massad Ayoob

Paradoxically it is those who strive for self-reliance, who remain vigilant and ready to help others.

WeTheArmed.com

  • Advertisement
  • ***

    katmandoo

    • This is gonna take crackerjack timing Wang...
    • Member
    • **
    • Posts: 266

    • Offline
    Re: 2016 Presidential Debate
    « Reply #26 on: September 28, 2016, 10:40:42 am »
    http://www.dailywire.com/news/9458/trump-has-4-giant-advantages-tonight-ben-shapiro?utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=social&utm_content=news&utm_campaign=twitterbenshapiro# 

    A little late in seeing this one, but now in hindsight, how do you believe this debate panned out? I was able to see some highlights from it, but overall it seemed uninteresting. Which is strange, because I typically enjoy debates  :shrug.
    It was the biggest overblown non-event since Y2K.



    Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk

    MinnesotaKevin - Stillwater, MN

    "The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes....Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man."

    Thomas Jefferson's "Commonplace Book," 1774-1776, quoting 18th century criminologist Cesare Beccaria in Chapter 40 of "On Crimes and Punishment", 1764

    sqlbullet

    • Contributor
    • ****
    • Posts: 1607

    • Offline
    Re: 2016 Presidential Debate
    « Reply #27 on: September 28, 2016, 10:46:34 am »
    Trump IMHO only made one decent point all night.  That was Hillary has had 30 years in politics, and 25 of it at the national level and has not really changed the status quo.

    I also thought it was disingenuous of her to stand on President Clinton's balanced budgets, but Trump failed to score well on that point.

    I watched about 20 minutes, then went and trimmed 223 brass.
    Utah

    MTK20

    • Senior Contributor
    • *****
    • Posts: 8057
    • Mind of a philosopher, mouth of a sailor.

    • Offline
    Re: 2016 Presidential Debate
    « Reply #28 on: September 28, 2016, 11:16:18 am »
    Trump IMHO only made one decent point all night.  That was Hillary has had 30 years in politics, and 25 of it at the national level and has not really changed the status quo.

    I also thought it was disingenuous of her to stand on President Clinton's balanced budgets, but Trump failed to score well on that point.

    I watched about 20 minutes, then went and trimmed 223 brass.

    On a side note, can we agree that anyone who rides the coattails of "well, my spouse/child/parent/sibling does this job or has that skill, so I know what I'm talking about" are horrible?

    Example: I just love it when a housewife tells me how educated she is in medicine, cos her husband is a physician  ::).

    I'm sure you LEO's also get this allot. "You can't write me a ticket! I know _____ , so I have the same prestige and status! Rules can't apply to me!"

    /end rant
    Texas
    Do we forget that cops were primarily still using 6 Shot Revolvers well through the mid 80's? It wasn't until after 1986 that most departments then relented and went to autos.
    Capacity wasn't really an issue then... and honestly really it's not even an issue now.
    Ray Chapman, used to say that the 125-grain Magnum load’s almost magical stopping power was the only reason to load .357 instead of .38 Special +P ammunition into a fighting revolver chambered for the Magnum round. I agree. - Massad Ayoob

    Paradoxically it is those who strive for self-reliance, who remain vigilant and ready to help others.

    MTK20

    • Senior Contributor
    • *****
    • Posts: 8057
    • Mind of a philosopher, mouth of a sailor.

    • Offline
    Re: 2016 Presidential Debate
    « Reply #29 on: September 28, 2016, 11:33:17 am »
    Huh, I didn't realise that Cruz had started supporting trump again. I typically like Cruz, but he might have politically shot himself in the foot doing this latest endorsment.

    Texas
    Do we forget that cops were primarily still using 6 Shot Revolvers well through the mid 80's? It wasn't until after 1986 that most departments then relented and went to autos.
    Capacity wasn't really an issue then... and honestly really it's not even an issue now.
    Ray Chapman, used to say that the 125-grain Magnum load’s almost magical stopping power was the only reason to load .357 instead of .38 Special +P ammunition into a fighting revolver chambered for the Magnum round. I agree. - Massad Ayoob

    Paradoxically it is those who strive for self-reliance, who remain vigilant and ready to help others.

    booksmart

    • Token Left Leaning Idealist Libertarian
    • Senior Contributor
    • *****
    • Posts: 6677
    • E. Pluribus Unum.

    • Offline
    Re: 2016 Presidential Debate
    « Reply #30 on: September 28, 2016, 12:04:25 pm »
    On a side note, can we agree that anyone who rides the coattails of "well, my spouse/child/parent/sibling does this job or has that skill, so I know what I'm talking about" are horrible?

    Example: I just love it when a housewife tells me how educated she is in medicine, cos her husband is a physician  ::).


    I feel fairly certain that Hillary would have made her 2 cents known when Bill was working on that budget... saying that Hillary wasn't involved in politics back then is a little disingenuous & dismissive, too.  The Clintons have *always* been billed as a package, to my memory.

    I know my wife feels free to tell me what to do with my money...

    katmandoo

    • This is gonna take crackerjack timing Wang...
    • Member
    • **
    • Posts: 266

    • Offline
    Re: 2016 Presidential Debate
    « Reply #31 on: September 28, 2016, 12:09:40 pm »
    Huh, I didn't realise that Cruz had started supporting trump again. I typically like Cruz, but he might have politically shot himself in the foot doing this latest endorsment.



    i believe part of the agreement for his endorsement was getting Mike Lee on the list for SCOTUS.  And i would imagine it went a long way to getting Cruz on that list also.
    MinnesotaKevin - Stillwater, MN

    "The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes....Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man."

    Thomas Jefferson's "Commonplace Book," 1774-1776, quoting 18th century criminologist Cesare Beccaria in Chapter 40 of "On Crimes and Punishment", 1764

    Kaso

    • Senior Contributor
    • *****
    • Posts: 7213
    • WTA Hardline Antagonist (aka: Jerk)

    • Offline
    Re: 2016 Presidential Debate
    « Reply #32 on: September 28, 2016, 12:44:21 pm »
    I would have been okay if Cruz had just ate crow and endorsed him at the convention.  I was not happy with the childish display that he delivered instead - it showed me that the people made the right choice in rejecting him as the nominee.  However, this latest turn tells me that for all Cruz's theatrics, he is still a politician.  Rather than standing on moral high ground all of those times he held up the senate... all of his games were just that - games.  Political points in the bank, for later.  I am no longer crazy about seeing Cruz in the white house in 2020, 2024, or any other year.

    Cruz was my first choice, but I am glad he lost.  Trump was not my first, second, or even third, but now that I look past his theatrics and into his policies...  They make good sense.  Almost all of them do.  He takes a common sense stance on things, even when from any other candidate, it would be political suicide.  Sometimes his position is far Left, sometimes far Right, and sometimes more Centrist.  But almost everything he says he will do, popular or not, makes sense.

    Trump is a bad candidate to run, as he doesn't have the finesse of a politician, (and he certainly does not have Hillary's discipline) but he will be an excellent leader in the white house, doing much to set the tone and 'attitude' of the government, and helping to erase the damage of the last eight (plus) years.

    MTK20

    • Senior Contributor
    • *****
    • Posts: 8057
    • Mind of a philosopher, mouth of a sailor.

    • Offline
    Re: 2016 Presidential Debate
    « Reply #33 on: September 28, 2016, 01:26:25 pm »
    I would have been okay if Cruz had just ate crow and endorsed him at the convention.  I was not happy with the childish display that he delivered instead - it showed me that the people made the right choice in rejecting him as the nominee.  However, this latest turn tells me that for all Cruz's theatrics, he is still a politician.  Rather than standing on moral high ground all of those times he held up the senate... all of his games were just that - games.  Political points in the bank, for later.  I am no longer crazy about seeing Cruz in the white house in 2020, 2024, or any other year.

    Cruz was my first choice, but I am glad he lost.  Trump was not my first, second, or even third, but now that I look past his theatrics and into his policies...  They make good sense.  Almost all of them do.  He takes a common sense stance on things, even when from any other candidate, it would be political suicide.  Sometimes his position is far Left, sometimes far Right, and sometimes more Centrist.  But almost everything he says he will do, popular or not, makes sense.

    Trump is a bad candidate to run, as he doesn't have the finesse of a politician, (and he certainly does not have Hillary's discipline) but he will be an excellent leader in the white house, doing much to set the tone and 'attitude' of the government, and helping to erase the damage of the last eight (plus) years.

     :thumbup1
    Texas
    Do we forget that cops were primarily still using 6 Shot Revolvers well through the mid 80's? It wasn't until after 1986 that most departments then relented and went to autos.
    Capacity wasn't really an issue then... and honestly really it's not even an issue now.
    Ray Chapman, used to say that the 125-grain Magnum load’s almost magical stopping power was the only reason to load .357 instead of .38 Special +P ammunition into a fighting revolver chambered for the Magnum round. I agree. - Massad Ayoob

    Paradoxically it is those who strive for self-reliance, who remain vigilant and ready to help others.

    sqlbullet

    • Contributor
    • ****
    • Posts: 1607

    • Offline
    Re: 2016 Presidential Debate
    « Reply #34 on: September 28, 2016, 04:15:43 pm »
    I feel fairly certain that Hillary would have made her 2 cents known when Bill was working on that budget... saying that Hillary wasn't involved in politics back then is a little disingenuous & dismissive, too.  The Clintons have *always* been billed as a package, to my memory.

    I know my wife feels free to tell me what to do with my money...

    I wrote better than half of my wife's college papers her senior year.  She was pregnant with our first and had horrible first trimester morning sickness 24 hours a day for nine months.  Still, she directed me, knew the research and proofed the papers.   Doesn't mean I can claim a college degree in her area.
    Utah

    booksmart

    • Token Left Leaning Idealist Libertarian
    • Senior Contributor
    • *****
    • Posts: 6677
    • E. Pluribus Unum.

    • Offline
    Re: 2016 Presidential Debate
    « Reply #35 on: September 28, 2016, 04:46:55 pm »
    I wrote better than half of my wife's college papers her senior year.  She was pregnant with our first and had horrible first trimester morning sickness 24 hours a day for nine months.  Still, she directed me, knew the research and proofed the papers.   Doesn't mean I can claim a college degree in her area.

    No, but you probably have a better grasp than the average person on those subjects.

    While Bill was in the White House, she wasn't off getting her nails done, y'know?  She's been involved on the national stage in one way or another for quite a while (hell, she probably wasn't kicking back while he was Governor, either).

    Half of the Right's dislike of her is that she's too connected, too much of an insider.  You can't call her that then turn around and say she doesn't know her way around politics.

    It's one or the other. Can't be both.

    Kaso

    • Senior Contributor
    • *****
    • Posts: 7213
    • WTA Hardline Antagonist (aka: Jerk)

    • Offline
    Re: 2016 Presidential Debate
    « Reply #36 on: September 28, 2016, 04:52:51 pm »
    Yes, I agree.  She has been Bill's partner in crime (figuratively, yes, but also literally) his whole career.  All of the way back to the Governor's mansion in Little Rock.  Everything good he accomplished, she can claim a part of, and everything he did deserving prison time...  Two for the price of one.

    But not Benghazi.  That was none of Bill's fault, poor guy.

    Mississippi556

    • Senior Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 915

    • Offline
    Re: 2016 Presidential Debate
    « Reply #37 on: September 29, 2016, 09:16:15 am »
    Debating is a skill.  It is not, however a skill set needed or even useful to an elected President.  We are not electing a Debater-in-Chief.

    That's good for Trump.  As a lawyer, former high school and college debater, and now debate coach, it is my assessment Clinton cleaned his clock on style and points.  As an American citizen, it does not matter.  I'm no fan of Trump.  I supported Cruz.  But, I think the debate did not move the needle for either candidate. 

    She is a professional politician.  The public is tired of them all.  He is a businessman offering a fresh approach as an outsider (or claims to be).  No one expected much from the debate, at least from him.  While he missed scores of opportunities, he did not do anything fatal.  The bar was low for him and he cleared it.  That's about all.

    if he wants to pick up undecided voters, rather than play to his base, he must focus on some basic strategy of making the points where she is weak and taking it to her:  Email scandal as true national security breach issue, Bengazi as failure of leadership and intentional deception of families of those who died, cover-ups, etc.  Her attacks on 2A and her anti-LE, pro rioter stance, her alarming position on open borders and terrorism, the Iraq withdrawal debacle (move away from the red herring of whether we should have gone in, and focus on the consequences of the withdrawal).  The list of failure in judgment on her watch and failed policies of Obama, Clinton and of Dems is long and ripe for picking.  Just hitting hard on the low hanging fruit should be easy. 

    If he avoids being drawn into a defensive mode and at least stays on her record, he can do better.  He does not need to be a debater, he just needs to pick and harvest the low hanging fruit.  The limbs are so full they are almost breaking.
    Mississippi"When a strong man, fully armed, guards his own palace, his goods are safe"  Words of Jesus, Luke 11:21 (ESV).

    booksmart

    • Token Left Leaning Idealist Libertarian
    • Senior Contributor
    • *****
    • Posts: 6677
    • E. Pluribus Unum.

    • Offline
    Re: 2016 Presidential Debate
    « Reply #38 on: September 29, 2016, 11:21:41 am »
    The big problem with that approach is that Trump is not willing to listen to political advisers on how to approach this. His ego demands that he knows best how to proceed, how to close the deal, and, in the end, that's not going to be enough.  When it comes to international policy, he's already proven he has no *clue* how to conduct himself (look at what happened after he met with the President of Mexico).

    Kaso

    • Senior Contributor
    • *****
    • Posts: 7213
    • WTA Hardline Antagonist (aka: Jerk)

    • Offline
    Re: 2016 Presidential Debate
    « Reply #39 on: September 29, 2016, 11:51:35 am »
    Yeah, about that...  I seem to recall, and I recognized distinctly at the time, that right after the meeting the Mexican president was saying good things about Trump, and then a day later (likely once one of his advisers told him that his praise was making Trump look good) the negativity started coming. 

    I'm not just making this up now, either.  I saw it then and I was kind of pissed.  You either liked the guy or you hated him, but please be consistent.

    Mississippi556

    • Senior Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 915

    • Offline
    Re: 2016 Presidential Debate
    « Reply #40 on: September 29, 2016, 03:46:40 pm »
    The big problem with that approach is that Trump is not willing to listen to political advisers on how to approach this. His ego demands that he knows best how to proceed, how to close the deal, and, in the end, that's not going to be enough.  When it comes to international policy, he's already proven he has no *clue* how to conduct himself (look at what happened after he met with the President of Mexico).

    You are right that he probably won't listen.  He does not need to memorize a lot of facts, though.  He just needs to attack her failed record, which is not only her failed record but that of the entire "insider" status quo, and not let her control the agenda.

    As to him being clueless on Mexico, I agree that the Mexican President seemed pleased until his advisers pulled him back.  More importantly Clinton has actual, real world experience in international matters and that experience has been failure after failure and has contributed substantially to the instability in the Middle East and to the rise of Isis.  He would have to make a lot more mistakes than one meeting with a Mexican President (if it was a mistake) to even be counted in the same discussion with Clinton's failures, which have jeoparodized national security and have cost American lives and those of our allies.

    He may not prove any better in international matters.  But Clinton has been terrible and there is no prospect of improvement with her in the White House.

    The next "debate" will be a town hall format.  I don't know who that favors.  Questions are more likely to be negative partisan and "loaded" for each of them.  She may be better in avoiding the tendency to personalize a seemingly or actually hostile question, and better at resorting to her "talking points".   He could do well if he talks directly to the audience about how government has failed them -- a "how's that working for you?" approach.

    Perhaps the single most important thing Trump said in the last debate was the looming crash because of the artificially inflated "bubble" that is keeping the stock market chugging because of near zero percent interest in alternative investments.  He understands this.  It will be terrible and it will happen soon.  When interest rates rise, as they must based on simple laws of economics, many people will see their retirement investments hurt really badly.  State and local governments will not longer be able to fund their retirement plans.  It will be really bad.   I don't know what Trump has in mind, but I believe he and his advisers will be better equipped to deal with it.

    Bear in mind, I don't like Trump.  Nothing about him.  I can't believe I'm defending Trump.  I need to take a shower to get the stench off.  But Clinton will merely perpetuate in spades what has already failed.  No shower can get rid of that smell.
    « Last Edit: September 29, 2016, 04:03:54 pm by Mississippi556 »
    Mississippi"When a strong man, fully armed, guards his own palace, his goods are safe"  Words of Jesus, Luke 11:21 (ESV).

    MTK20

    • Senior Contributor
    • *****
    • Posts: 8057
    • Mind of a philosopher, mouth of a sailor.

    • Offline
    Re: 2016 Presidential Debate
    « Reply #41 on: September 30, 2016, 07:56:27 pm »
    Apparently the campaign has taken a turn for the frivolous?



    Nothing new to see here, carry on  :coffee.
    Texas
    Do we forget that cops were primarily still using 6 Shot Revolvers well through the mid 80's? It wasn't until after 1986 that most departments then relented and went to autos.
    Capacity wasn't really an issue then... and honestly really it's not even an issue now.
    Ray Chapman, used to say that the 125-grain Magnum load’s almost magical stopping power was the only reason to load .357 instead of .38 Special +P ammunition into a fighting revolver chambered for the Magnum round. I agree. - Massad Ayoob

    Paradoxically it is those who strive for self-reliance, who remain vigilant and ready to help others.

    booksmart

    • Token Left Leaning Idealist Libertarian
    • Senior Contributor
    • *****
    • Posts: 6677
    • E. Pluribus Unum.

    • Offline
    Re: 2016 Presidential Debate
    « Reply #42 on: September 30, 2016, 08:31:42 pm »
    Apparently the campaign has taken a turn for the frivolous?

    As opposed to the surreal tone it's had since Trump started his run?


    Sent from my iPad using a bunch of electrons, copper, and probably some fiber optic cable

    Kaso

    • Senior Contributor
    • *****
    • Posts: 7213
    • WTA Hardline Antagonist (aka: Jerk)

    • Offline
    Re: 2016 Presidential Debate
    « Reply #43 on: September 30, 2016, 09:06:14 pm »
    As opposed to the surreal tone it's had since Trump started his run?
    Of course, your candidate has a handful of real reasons why she should be doing 25-Life in Federal, so its not like you have much room to judge.  AND she was part of Obama's administration, so further points against her.

    On one side we have the slimiest, most crooked politician ever to be seriously considered for the oval office, who has blood on her hands and has sold out her country for her own gain.  On the other side, a pompous, arrogant, crude, foul-mouthed a__hole, who steps on the little guys where he can, definitely looks down on women, (I won't deny that) and is willing to alienate everyone and anyone.  Neither of them are racists themselves, yet both go out of their way to stir up their pet constituency race against the 'other races.'  Both of them do it shamelessly.

    So really, if your conscience compels you to vote Clinton, do what you feel you must.  Just don't look down on those of us that choose Trump, because in my mind, her sins are far greater.

    lesptr

    • Member
    • **
    • Posts: 415

    • Offline
    Re: 2016 Presidential Debate
    « Reply #44 on: September 30, 2016, 10:37:51 pm »
    Well said.
    Georgia

    booksmart

    • Token Left Leaning Idealist Libertarian
    • Senior Contributor
    • *****
    • Posts: 6677
    • E. Pluribus Unum.

    • Offline
    Re: 2016 Presidential Debate
    « Reply #45 on: September 30, 2016, 11:07:26 pm »
    I assure you, Clinton was *not* my first choice. I voted for Sanders.

    But I can't in good conscience vote for someone who has made a mockery of the political process in this country (which, considering the behavior on both sides of the aisle for the past 16 years, says a lot).


    Sent from my iPad using a bunch of electrons, copper, and probably some fiber optic cable

    JackCrow

    • Contributor
    • ****
    • Posts: 1133
    • This Jack Crow is no other Jack Crow.

    • Offline
    Re: 2016 Presidential Debate
    « Reply #46 on: September 30, 2016, 11:13:05 pm »
    The current seated politicians and the process that abets them is in desperate need of mockery.
    Arizona"First comes smiles, then lies, last comes gunfire." - Roland of Gilead

    If the reaper wants to take you, make the blighter slip on the brass. - Roper1911

    Kaso

    • Senior Contributor
    • *****
    • Posts: 7213
    • WTA Hardline Antagonist (aka: Jerk)

    • Offline
    Re: 2016 Presidential Debate
    « Reply #47 on: September 30, 2016, 11:21:57 pm »
    I assure you, Clinton was *not* my first choice. I voted for Sanders.

    But I can't in good conscience vote for someone who has made a mockery of the political process in this country (which, considering the behavior on both sides of the aisle for the past 16 years, says a lot).

    I voted for Sanders as well.  Not because I liked what he said, but because Pennsylvania is a closed primary state and the alternative to Sanders was simply not an option.  Nor is she now.

    To apply your line of reasoning to the other side,  Sec. Clinton has by her candidacy made a mockery of the concepts of 'justice' and 'equal before the law.'  In my view, far worse than mocking our perennial political circus.

    MTK20

    • Senior Contributor
    • *****
    • Posts: 8057
    • Mind of a philosopher, mouth of a sailor.

    • Offline
    Re: 2016 Presidential Debate
    « Reply #48 on: October 01, 2016, 09:11:28 pm »


    This woman supports Trump. I'm also posting it in the SJW thread, cos it relates there too.
    Texas
    Do we forget that cops were primarily still using 6 Shot Revolvers well through the mid 80's? It wasn't until after 1986 that most departments then relented and went to autos.
    Capacity wasn't really an issue then... and honestly really it's not even an issue now.
    Ray Chapman, used to say that the 125-grain Magnum load’s almost magical stopping power was the only reason to load .357 instead of .38 Special +P ammunition into a fighting revolver chambered for the Magnum round. I agree. - Massad Ayoob

    Paradoxically it is those who strive for self-reliance, who remain vigilant and ready to help others.

    Help support WeTheArmed.com by visiting our sponsors.