Debate #1 -- Clinton v Trump --- 2016 -- OFFICIAL THREAD.

[jc456]

I just listened to a man running for president who:

-defended why he was sued by the Justice Department for not giving housing to African-Americans in the 1970's by saying "everyone else was doing it"
-defended calling some women pigs and slobs
-defended hoping for a recession in 2006/7, because it was "good for business"
-defended singling out President Obama on his birth certificate
-was confused about nuclear weapons and alliances
-refused to release his tax returns, and was proud about using loopholes that only help the wealthy, calling himself "smart" for not paying any taxes
-defended not paying people for their work
-said we're in a 3rd-world-country because he can't land his private jet at every airport
-called for a law ruled unconstitutional to go nationwide
-said it was a good thing for Russia to hack us
-doesn't think blowing up people from other countries (because they were rude) would start a war
-was supremely obnoxious
...and so much more, while only offering the old "trickle down" policies to help us, and thought repeating certain words made him look tough when he looked panicky.

Trump cannot become President.

And the other candidate murdered four Americans and hid it by deleting 33k emails.

Bullshit. Let me see your last 33,000 emails. I bet I can find some embarrassing stuff. Funny you want her to be that transparent but I don't see us combing through Trumps emails or his tax returns.

Again, I m not holding a subpoena that says not to. That's why

 

[sealybobo]

Was bush or the GOP against NAFTA?

NAFTA is supported by Hillary, not Trump, the Democrats love NAFTA, you have stated you are for NAFTA. I am against NAFTA, always have been.

It's not that simple.

Am I against trade? No. Am I against unfair trade deals? Yes.

So you are an isolationist? That's ridiculous.

You sound like a Republican who's against regulations. They don't realize there are good and bad regulations. They're just against all regulations because their party told them regulations are bad.

In another thread you stated you were for NAFTA. Not free trade deals, NAFTA. I never said I was against all trade, I said I'm against NAFTA.

I never said I was against regulations, you keep trying to assign me to positions I'm not.

And I was against NAFTA and was mad at Bill Clinton for going along with the Republicans and signing it. But don't expect me to vote GOP just because occasionally the Democrats go along with the GOP. Do you get that? I'm mad at Bill Clinton for doing what a Republican would do. So what do you want me to do? Vote Republican? A Republican will always go along with the Republicans. So I'm better off with a Clinton. A corporate Democrat.

How many months of straight job growth? And?

US Consumer Confidence Rises - And Confidence Is The Bedrock Of Economic Growth

I don't think things are as bad as Republicans say. And I remember when things were bad, the GOP said things weren't bad. So I think we should stick with the Democrats despite all the doom and gloom the GOP predict. They're always going to do that when they aren't in power.

In 2001 Bush inherited a mess and the Democrats claimed it wasn't bad. Less than six weeks after Bush was sworn in, there was a recession. Please spare me the partisan BS.

He inherited a surplus and if it weren't for his bad policies he would have easily gotten out of the dot com bubble burst.

And we would have not had the housing crash if it weren't for shipping all those people's jobs overseas.

And if the GOP didn't deregulate so that basically predatory lending could occur. I remember what went down.

 

[sealybobo]

I just listened to a man running for president who:

-defended why he was sued by the Justice Department for not giving housing to African-Americans in the 1970's by saying "everyone else was doing it"
-defended calling some women pigs and slobs
-defended hoping for a recession in 2006/7, because it was "good for business"
-defended singling out President Obama on his birth certificate
-was confused about nuclear weapons and alliances
-refused to release his tax returns, and was proud about using loopholes that only help the wealthy, calling himself "smart" for not paying any taxes
-defended not paying people for their work
-said we're in a 3rd-world-country because he can't land his private jet at every airport
-called for a law ruled unconstitutional to go nationwide
-said it was a good thing for Russia to hack us
-doesn't think blowing up people from other countries (because they were rude) would start a war
-was supremely obnoxious
...and so much more, while only offering the old "trickle down" policies to help us, and thought repeating certain words made him look tough when he looked panicky.

Trump cannot become President.

And the other candidate murdered four Americans and hid it by deleting 33k emails.

Bullshit. Let me see your last 33,000 emails. I bet I can find some embarrassing stuff. Funny you want her to be that transparent but I don't see us combing through Trumps emails or his tax returns.

Again, I m not holding a subpoena that says not to. That's why

You fucking impeached Clinton for lying about a blow job. You pick on his wife for her emails but you did and said NOTHING about this?

FLASHBACK: When Millions Of Lost Bush White House Emails (From Private Accounts) Triggered A Media Shrug

 

[sealybobo]

Was bush or the GOP against NAFTA?

NAFTA is supported by Hillary, not Trump, the Democrats love NAFTA, you have stated you are for NAFTA. I am against NAFTA, always have been.

It's not that simple.

Am I against trade? No. Am I against unfair trade deals? Yes.

So you are an isolationist? That's ridiculous.

You sound like a Republican who's against regulations. They don't realize there are good and bad regulations. They're just against all regulations because their party told them regulations are bad.

In another thread you stated you were for NAFTA. Not free trade deals, NAFTA. I never said I was against all trade, I said I'm against NAFTA.

I never said I was against regulations, you keep trying to assign me to positions I'm not.

Why are you against NAFTA?

Really?

You must be a blue collar uneducated worker.

 

[sealybobo]

I didn't claim you hate either one. I'm saying there are clear differences between the two of them and they are not equal.

I don't trust either to be the President. Pretty clear. I didn't know they were running for anything else. The only reason I'd vote for one of them is the Supreme Court selection.

Who said they are running for anything else? I don't ever trust politicians, not even 3rd party candidates. That being said one can think on her feet and the other one brought a whoopie cushion to a gun fight.

That is your opinion and I am glad you have one and I respect it. I won't vote for either, neither have convinced me I should vote for them. That is all that mattered to me out of the debate. The rest is BS.

. Gonna give it to the libs eh ? Ok then... Good luck with all the hell that will continue right on in this nation afterwards. She is vulnerable to way worse than what a Trump can dish out on her in these debates. She has some evil handlers awaiting her in the wings, and they are just waiting for her to gain access to that office so they can gain access to that office. She blanketly accuses the rich as if they are ALL crooks who don't pay their so called fair share right ? So what then maybe, she is all of a sudden gonna be the bad ace who will fix them good finally ? She don't like people blanketing people or labeling people, but she loves to do it when she isn't accusing someone else of allegingly doing it for the purpose of playing politics.

I love this. Give it to the libs? I just had someone telling me that not voting for Trump or Clinton is giving it to Trump.

Partisans always seem to think not voting for their favored candidate is somehow a vote for the main opposition.

I want Hillary to win. Sorry but I can't get on board with voting for Gary Johnson. That might put Trump in the white house.

And who says anyone other than tea baggers and libertarians like Gary Johnson? He's the girl who shows up at the bar at 1:45am. He looks good but that's because you haven't been looking at him all night. Maybe next time he won't wait till July 2016 to run for president. Maybe he will impress us the next 4 years. What did he do the last 4 years?

 

[Montrovant]

I don't trust either to be the President. Pretty clear. I didn't know they were running for anything else. The only reason I'd vote for one of them is the Supreme Court selection.

Who said they are running for anything else? I don't ever trust politicians, not even 3rd party candidates. That being said one can think on her feet and the other one brought a whoopie cushion to a gun fight.

That is your opinion and I am glad you have one and I respect it. I won't vote for either, neither have convinced me I should vote for them. That is all that mattered to me out of the debate. The rest is BS.

. Gonna give it to the libs eh ? Ok then... Good luck with all the hell that will continue right on in this nation afterwards. She is vulnerable to way worse than what a Trump can dish out on her in these debates. She has some evil handlers awaiting her in the wings, and they are just waiting for her to gain access to that office so they can gain access to that office. She blanketly accuses the rich as if they are ALL crooks who don't pay their so called fair share right ? So what then maybe, she is all of a sudden gonna be the bad ace who will fix them good finally ? She don't like people blanketing people or labeling people, but she loves to do it when she isn't accusing someone else of allegingly doing it for the purpose of playing politics.

I love this. Give it to the libs? I just had someone telling me that not voting for Trump or Clinton is giving it to Trump.

Partisans always seem to think not voting for their favored candidate is somehow a vote for the main opposition.

I want Hillary to win. Sorry but I can't get on board with voting for Gary Johnson. That might put Trump in the white house.

And who says anyone other than tea baggers and libertarians like Gary Johnson? He's the girl who shows up at the bar at 1:45am. He looks good but that's because you haven't been looking at him all night. Maybe next time he won't wait till July 2016 to run for president. Maybe he will impress us the next 4 years. What did he do the last 4 years?

You do realize he ran for president in 2012, don't you?

Third party candidates cannot get the coverage of the two major parties. Part of it is funding, part of it is the control the parties have over the process, part of it is the media. Johnson and Stein are both on enough state ballots to be able to get enough electoral votes to win, but we hear next to nothing about them. Even if they are both terrible candidates, they aren't given the kind of exposure, or even vetted nearly as much, as the Dems and Repubs.

I'm not saying Johnson or Stein fit with your views and you should be voting for one of them, but when we have two major party candidates with the historically bad ratings of Clinton and Trump and the third party candidates still can barely get any notice, it shows the stranglehold the Dems and Repubs have on American politics.

Our choices are very intentionally limited IMO.

 

[Papageorgio]

NAFTA is supported by Hillary, not Trump, the Democrats love NAFTA, you have stated you are for NAFTA. I am against NAFTA, always have been.

It's not that simple.

Am I against trade? No. Am I against unfair trade deals? Yes.

So you are an isolationist? That's ridiculous.

You sound like a Republican who's against regulations. They don't realize there are good and bad regulations. They're just against all regulations because their party told them regulations are bad.

In another thread you stated you were for NAFTA. Not free trade deals, NAFTA. I never said I was against all trade, I said I'm against NAFTA.

I never said I was against regulations, you keep trying to assign me to positions I'm not.

And I was against NAFTA and was mad at Bill Clinton for going along with the Republicans and signing it. But don't expect me to vote GOP just because occasionally the Democrats go along with the GOP. Do you get that? I'm mad at Bill Clinton for doing what a Republican would do. So what do you want me to do? Vote Republican? A Republican will always go along with the Republicans. So I'm better off with a Clinton. A corporate Democrat.

How many months of straight job growth? And?

US Consumer Confidence Rises - And Confidence Is The Bedrock Of Economic Growth

I don't think things are as bad as Republicans say. And I remember when things were bad, the GOP said things weren't bad. So I think we should stick with the Democrats despite all the doom and gloom the GOP predict. They're always going to do that when they aren't in power.

In 2001 Bush inherited a mess and the Democrats claimed it wasn't bad. Less than six weeks after Bush was sworn in, there was a recession. Please spare me the partisan BS.

He inherited a surplus and if it weren't for his bad policies he would have easily gotten out of the dot com bubble burst.

And we would have not had the housing crash if it weren't for shipping all those people's jobs overseas.

And if the GOP didn't deregulate so that basically predatory lending could occur. I remember what went down.

one month after he took office we were in a recession, the definition of a recession takes in the two previous economic quarters, which laid us squarely under Clinton. November after 5/11 a financial disaster we were out of the recession. It was amazing, sorry but the dotcom burst was squarely on Clinton.

 

[Papageorgio]

NAFTA is supported by Hillary, not Trump, the Democrats love NAFTA, you have stated you are for NAFTA. I am against NAFTA, always have been.

It's not that simple.

Am I against trade? No. Am I against unfair trade deals? Yes.

So you are an isolationist? That's ridiculous.

You sound like a Republican who's against regulations. They don't realize there are good and bad regulations. They're just against all regulations because their party told them regulations are bad.

In another thread you stated you were for NAFTA. Not free trade deals, NAFTA. I never said I was against all trade, I said I'm against NAFTA.

I never said I was against regulations, you keep trying to assign me to positions I'm not.

Why are you against NAFTA?

Really?

You must be a blue collar uneducated worker.

More of your bigotry and liberal intolerance of others. At least he isn't a drug dealer or tax evader, oh wait that is acceptable to you.

 

[sealybobo]

Who said they are running for anything else? I don't ever trust politicians, not even 3rd party candidates. That being said one can think on her feet and the other one brought a whoopie cushion to a gun fight.

That is your opinion and I am glad you have one and I respect it. I won't vote for either, neither have convinced me I should vote for them. That is all that mattered to me out of the debate. The rest is BS.

. Gonna give it to the libs eh ? Ok then... Good luck with all the hell that will continue right on in this nation afterwards. She is vulnerable to way worse than what a Trump can dish out on her in these debates. She has some evil handlers awaiting her in the wings, and they are just waiting for her to gain access to that office so they can gain access to that office. She blanketly accuses the rich as if they are ALL crooks who don't pay their so called fair share right ? So what then maybe, she is all of a sudden gonna be the bad ace who will fix them good finally ? She don't like people blanketing people or labeling people, but she loves to do it when she isn't accusing someone else of allegingly doing it for the purpose of playing politics.

I love this. Give it to the libs? I just had someone telling me that not voting for Trump or Clinton is giving it to Trump.

Partisans always seem to think not voting for their favored candidate is somehow a vote for the main opposition.

I want Hillary to win. Sorry but I can't get on board with voting for Gary Johnson. That might put Trump in the white house.

And who says anyone other than tea baggers and libertarians like Gary Johnson? He's the girl who shows up at the bar at 1:45am. He looks good but that's because you haven't been looking at him all night. Maybe next time he won't wait till July 2016 to run for president. Maybe he will impress us the next 4 years. What did he do the last 4 years?

You do realize he ran for president in 2012, don't you?

Third party candidates cannot get the coverage of the two major parties. Part of it is funding, part of it is the control the parties have over the process, part of it is the media. Johnson and Stein are both on enough state ballots to be able to get enough electoral votes to win, but we hear next to nothing about them. Even if they are both terrible candidates, they aren't given the kind of exposure, or even vetted nearly as much, as the Dems and Repubs.

I'm not saying Johnson or Stein fit with your views and you should be voting for one of them, but when we have two major party candidates with the historically bad ratings of Clinton and Trump and the third party candidates still can barely get any notice, it shows the stranglehold the Dems and Repubs have on American politics.

Our choices are very intentionally limited IMO.

I bet trump would have got more air time running 3rd party.

Tell Gary to tell me something, anything! He's doing a horrible job marketing himself.

Or ultimately the American people don't want libertarianism or teabaggery.

In Canada they get $100 epipens. Perhaps capitalism is just another ism that's been abused. When the fact is a well regulated capitalistic society is best. And some things shouldn't be privatized.

 

[sealybobo]

It's not that simple.

Am I against trade? No. Am I against unfair trade deals? Yes.

So you are an isolationist? That's ridiculous.

You sound like a Republican who's against regulations. They don't realize there are good and bad regulations. They're just against all regulations because their party told them regulations are bad.

In another thread you stated you were for NAFTA. Not free trade deals, NAFTA. I never said I was against all trade, I said I'm against NAFTA.

I never said I was against regulations, you keep trying to assign me to positions I'm not.

Why are you against NAFTA?

Really?

You must be a blue collar uneducated worker.

More of your bigotry and liberal intolerance of others. At least he isn't a drug dealer or tax evader, oh wait that is acceptable to you.

I wouldn't approve if I was sitting on a jury and I would expect to be punished if caught.

I didn't say tax evasion for drug dealers should be legal. Is that what you want to change the subject to?

 

[Alex.]

That is your opinion and I am glad you have one and I respect it. I won't vote for either, neither have convinced me I should vote for them. That is all that mattered to me out of the debate. The rest is BS.

. Gonna give it to the libs eh ? Ok then... Good luck with all the hell that will continue right on in this nation afterwards. She is vulnerable to way worse than what a Trump can dish out on her in these debates. She has some evil handlers awaiting her in the wings, and they are just waiting for her to gain access to that office so they can gain access to that office. She blanketly accuses the rich as if they are ALL crooks who don't pay their so called fair share right ? So what then maybe, she is all of a sudden gonna be the bad ace who will fix them good finally ? She don't like people blanketing people or labeling people, but she loves to do it when she isn't accusing someone else of allegingly doing it for the purpose of playing politics.

I love this. Give it to the libs? I just had someone telling me that not voting for Trump or Clinton is giving it to Trump.

Partisans always seem to think not voting for their favored candidate is somehow a vote for the main opposition.

I want Hillary to win. Sorry but I can't get on board with voting for Gary Johnson. That might put Trump in the white house.

And who says anyone other than tea baggers and libertarians like Gary Johnson? He's the girl who shows up at the bar at 1:45am. He looks good but that's because you haven't been looking at him all night. Maybe next time he won't wait till July 2016 to run for president. Maybe he will impress us the next 4 years. What did he do the last 4 years?

You do realize he ran for president in 2012, don't you?

Third party candidates cannot get the coverage of the two major parties. Part of it is funding, part of it is the control the parties have over the process, part of it is the media. Johnson and Stein are both on enough state ballots to be able to get enough electoral votes to win, but we hear next to nothing about them. Even if they are both terrible candidates, they aren't given the kind of exposure, or even vetted nearly as much, as the Dems and Repubs.

I'm not saying Johnson or Stein fit with your views and you should be voting for one of them, but when we have two major party candidates with the historically bad ratings of Clinton and Trump and the third party candidates still can barely get any notice, it shows the stranglehold the Dems and Repubs have on American politics.

Our choices are very intentionally limited IMO.

I bet trump would have got more air time running 3rd party.

Tell Gary to tell me something, anything! He's doing a horrible job marketing himself.

Or ultimately the American people don't want libertarianism or teabaggery.

In Canada they get $100 epipens. Perhaps capitalism is just another ism that's been abused. When the fact is a well regulated capitalistic society is best. And some things shouldn't be privatized.

"a well regulated capitalistic society is best"

By definition that is impossible and runs contrary to the basic ideals of capitalism







"What is 'Capitalism'
Capitalism is an economic system in which capital goods are owned by private individuals or businesses. The production of goods and services is based on supply and demand in the general market (market economy), rather than through central planning (planned economy or command economy). The purest form of capitalism is free market or laissez-faire capitalism, in which private individuals are completely free to determine where to invest, what to produce or sell, and at which prices to exchange goods and services, without check or controls."

Capitalism Definition | Investopedia Capitalism

 

[sealybobo]

It's not that simple.

Am I against trade? No. Am I against unfair trade deals? Yes.

So you are an isolationist? That's ridiculous.

You sound like a Republican who's against regulations. They don't realize there are good and bad regulations. They're just against all regulations because their party told them regulations are bad.

In another thread you stated you were for NAFTA. Not free trade deals, NAFTA. I never said I was against all trade, I said I'm against NAFTA.

I never said I was against regulations, you keep trying to assign me to positions I'm not.

Why are you against NAFTA?

Really?

You must be a blue collar uneducated worker.

More of your bigotry and liberal intolerance of others. At least he isn't a drug dealer or tax evader, oh wait that is acceptable to you.

I bet trump has stock in epipen. That's like being a drug dealer. And like me he pays no taxes. Only for him it's legal

 

[sealybobo]

. Gonna give it to the libs eh ? Ok then... Good luck with all the hell that will continue right on in this nation afterwards. She is vulnerable to way worse than what a Trump can dish out on her in these debates. She has some evil handlers awaiting her in the wings, and they are just waiting for her to gain access to that office so they can gain access to that office. She blanketly accuses the rich as if they are ALL crooks who don't pay their so called fair share right ? So what then maybe, she is all of a sudden gonna be the bad ace who will fix them good finally ? She don't like people blanketing people or labeling people, but she loves to do it when she isn't accusing someone else of allegingly doing it for the purpose of playing politics.

I love this. Give it to the libs? I just had someone telling me that not voting for Trump or Clinton is giving it to Trump.

Partisans always seem to think not voting for their favored candidate is somehow a vote for the main opposition.

I want Hillary to win. Sorry but I can't get on board with voting for Gary Johnson. That might put Trump in the white house.

And who says anyone other than tea baggers and libertarians like Gary Johnson? He's the girl who shows up at the bar at 1:45am. He looks good but that's because you haven't been looking at him all night. Maybe next time he won't wait till July 2016 to run for president. Maybe he will impress us the next 4 years. What did he do the last 4 years?

You do realize he ran for president in 2012, don't you?

Third party candidates cannot get the coverage of the two major parties. Part of it is funding, part of it is the control the parties have over the process, part of it is the media. Johnson and Stein are both on enough state ballots to be able to get enough electoral votes to win, but we hear next to nothing about them. Even if they are both terrible candidates, they aren't given the kind of exposure, or even vetted nearly as much, as the Dems and Repubs.

I'm not saying Johnson or Stein fit with your views and you should be voting for one of them, but when we have two major party candidates with the historically bad ratings of Clinton and Trump and the third party candidates still can barely get any notice, it shows the stranglehold the Dems and Repubs have on American politics.

Our choices are very intentionally limited IMO.

I bet trump would have got more air time running 3rd party.

Tell Gary to tell me something, anything! He's doing a horrible job marketing himself.

Or ultimately the American people don't want libertarianism or teabaggery.

In Canada they get $100 epipens. Perhaps capitalism is just another ism that's been abused. When the fact is a well regulated capitalistic society is best. And some things shouldn't be privatized.

"a well regulated capitalistic society is best"

By definition that is impossible and runs contrary to the basic ideals of capitalism







"What is 'Capitalism'
Capitalism is an economic system in which capital goods are owned by private individuals or businesses. The production of goods and services is based on supply and demand in the general market (market economy), rather than through central planning (planned economy or command economy). The purest form of capitalism is free market or laissez-faire capitalism, in which private individuals are completely free to determine where to invest, what to produce or sell, and at which prices to exchange goods and services, without check or controls."

Capitalism Definition | Investopedia Capitalism

We don't have laissez faire capitalism, do we? What do we have?

We have similar to what Germany or canada has, only they've nationalized healthcare

 

[Alex.]

I love this. Give it to the libs? I just had someone telling me that not voting for Trump or Clinton is giving it to Trump.

Partisans always seem to think not voting for their favored candidate is somehow a vote for the main opposition.

I want Hillary to win. Sorry but I can't get on board with voting for Gary Johnson. That might put Trump in the white house.

And who says anyone other than tea baggers and libertarians like Gary Johnson? He's the girl who shows up at the bar at 1:45am. He looks good but that's because you haven't been looking at him all night. Maybe next time he won't wait till July 2016 to run for president. Maybe he will impress us the next 4 years. What did he do the last 4 years?

You do realize he ran for president in 2012, don't you?

Third party candidates cannot get the coverage of the two major parties. Part of it is funding, part of it is the control the parties have over the process, part of it is the media. Johnson and Stein are both on enough state ballots to be able to get enough electoral votes to win, but we hear next to nothing about them. Even if they are both terrible candidates, they aren't given the kind of exposure, or even vetted nearly as much, as the Dems and Repubs.

I'm not saying Johnson or Stein fit with your views and you should be voting for one of them, but when we have two major party candidates with the historically bad ratings of Clinton and Trump and the third party candidates still can barely get any notice, it shows the stranglehold the Dems and Repubs have on American politics.

Our choices are very intentionally limited IMO.

I bet trump would have got more air time running 3rd party.

Tell Gary to tell me something, anything! He's doing a horrible job marketing himself.

Or ultimately the American people don't want libertarianism or teabaggery.

In Canada they get $100 epipens. Perhaps capitalism is just another ism that's been abused. When the fact is a well regulated capitalistic society is best. And some things shouldn't be privatized.

"a well regulated capitalistic society is best"

By definition that is impossible and runs contrary to the basic ideals of capitalism







"What is 'Capitalism'
Capitalism is an economic system in which capital goods are owned by private individuals or businesses. The production of goods and services is based on supply and demand in the general market (market economy), rather than through central planning (planned economy or command economy). The purest form of capitalism is free market or laissez-faire capitalism, in which private individuals are completely free to determine where to invest, what to produce or sell, and at which prices to exchange goods and services, without check or controls."

Capitalism Definition | Investopedia Capitalism

We don't have laissez faire capitalism, do we? What do we have?

We have similar to what Germany or canada has, only they've nationalized healthcare

The USA has a mixed economy.

"a mixed capitalist system of some sort that includes government regulation of business and industry."

Capitalism Definition | Investopedia Capitalism

 

[sealybobo]

It's not that simple.

Am I against trade? No. Am I against unfair trade deals? Yes.

So you are an isolationist? That's ridiculous.

You sound like a Republican who's against regulations. They don't realize there are good and bad regulations. They're just against all regulations because their party told them regulations are bad.

In another thread you stated you were for NAFTA. Not free trade deals, NAFTA. I never said I was against all trade, I said I'm against NAFTA.

I never said I was against regulations, you keep trying to assign me to positions I'm not.

Why are you against NAFTA?

Really?

You must be a blue collar uneducated worker.

More of your bigotry and liberal intolerance of others. At least he isn't a drug dealer or tax evader, oh wait that is acceptable to you.

History will look back and note that Republicans in Congress treated President Obama with unprecedented disrespect. He was the first president to be denied a hearing on a Supreme Court nominee, the first to be denied a hearing on his budget, and the first to be asked to show his birth certificate. Obama faced more than 500 filibusters.

The shabby treatment of Obama is part of why the GOP is saddled with Donald Trump as its presidential nominee too. Republicans would like to believe that Trump just fell out of the sky, and somehow mysteriously became the nominee of their party. But that is not how it is. Trump is no anomaly. He is the monster that Republicans built. He is their Frankenstein’s monster. They own him.

 

[Papageorgio]

In another thread you stated you were for NAFTA. Not free trade deals, NAFTA. I never said I was against all trade, I said I'm against NAFTA.

I never said I was against regulations, you keep trying to assign me to positions I'm not.

Why are you against NAFTA?

Really?

You must be a blue collar uneducated worker.

More of your bigotry and liberal intolerance of others. At least he isn't a drug dealer or tax evader, oh wait that is acceptable to you.

I bet trump has stock in epipen. That's like being a drug dealer. And like me he pays no taxes. Only for him it's legal

Right because he follows the laws and you don't.

 

[jillian]

. Gonna give it to the libs eh ? Ok then... Good luck with all the hell that will continue right on in this nation afterwards. She is vulnerable to way worse than what a Trump can dish out on her in these debates. She has some evil handlers awaiting her in the wings, and they are just waiting for her to gain access to that office so they can gain access to that office. She blanketly accuses the rich as if they are ALL crooks who don't pay their so called fair share right ? So what then maybe, she is all of a sudden gonna be the bad ace who will fix them good finally ? She don't like people blanketing people or labeling people, but she loves to do it when she isn't accusing someone else of allegingly doing it for the purpose of playing politics.

I love this. Give it to the libs? I just had someone telling me that not voting for Trump or Clinton is giving it to Trump.

Partisans always seem to think not voting for their favored candidate is somehow a vote for the main opposition.

I want Hillary to win. Sorry but I can't get on board with voting for Gary Johnson. That might put Trump in the white house.

And who says anyone other than tea baggers and libertarians like Gary Johnson? He's the girl who shows up at the bar at 1:45am. He looks good but that's because you haven't been looking at him all night. Maybe next time he won't wait till July 2016 to run for president. Maybe he will impress us the next 4 years. What did he do the last 4 years?

You do realize he ran for president in 2012, don't you?

Third party candidates cannot get the coverage of the two major parties. Part of it is funding, part of it is the control the parties have over the process, part of it is the media. Johnson and Stein are both on enough state ballots to be able to get enough electoral votes to win, but we hear next to nothing about them. Even if they are both terrible candidates, they aren't given the kind of exposure, or even vetted nearly as much, as the Dems and Repubs.

I'm not saying Johnson or Stein fit with your views and you should be voting for one of them, but when we have two major party candidates with the historically bad ratings of Clinton and Trump and the third party candidates still can barely get any notice, it shows the stranglehold the Dems and Repubs have on American politics.

Our choices are very intentionally limited IMO.

I bet trump would have got more air time running 3rd party.

Tell Gary to tell me something, anything! He's doing a horrible job marketing himself.

Or ultimately the American people don't want libertarianism or teabaggery.

In Canada they get $100 epipens. Perhaps capitalism is just another ism that's been abused. When the fact is a well regulated capitalistic society is best. And some things shouldn't be privatized.

"a well regulated capitalistic society is best"

By definition that is impossible and runs contrary to the basic ideals of capitalism







"What is 'Capitalism'
Capitalism is an economic system in which capital goods are owned by private individuals or businesses. The production of goods and services is based on supply and demand in the general market (market economy), rather than through central planning (planned economy or command economy). The purest form of capitalism is free market or laissez-faire capitalism, in which private individuals are completely free to determine where to invest, what to produce or sell, and at which prices to exchange goods and services, without check or controls."

Capitalism Definition | Investopedia Capitalism

unfettered capitalism fails workers.

healthy societies are a mixture of capitalism and socialism.

it's so funny how the angry right votes against their own economic interest.

 

[Papageorgio]

In another thread you stated you were for NAFTA. Not free trade deals, NAFTA. I never said I was against all trade, I said I'm against NAFTA.

I never said I was against regulations, you keep trying to assign me to positions I'm not.

Why are you against NAFTA?

Really?

You must be a blue collar uneducated worker.

More of your bigotry and liberal intolerance of others. At least he isn't a drug dealer or tax evader, oh wait that is acceptable to you.

History will look back and note that Republicans in Congress treated President Obama with unprecedented disrespect. He was the first president to be denied a hearing on a Supreme Court nominee, the first to be denied a hearing on his budget, and the first to be asked to show his birth certificate. Obama faced more than 500 filibusters.

The shabby treatment of Obama is part of why the GOP is saddled with Donald Trump as its presidential nominee too. Republicans would like to believe that Trump just fell out of the sky, and somehow mysteriously became the nominee of their party. But that is not how it is. Trump is no anomaly. He is the monster that Republicans built. He is their Frankenstein’s monster. They own him.

I doubt history will look back, we seem to forget it as fast as it happens. Only partisan nutters will see it differently.

 

[sealybobo]

Why are you against NAFTA?

Really?

You must be a blue collar uneducated worker.

More of your bigotry and liberal intolerance of others. At least he isn't a drug dealer or tax evader, oh wait that is acceptable to you.

History will look back and note that Republicans in Congress treated President Obama with unprecedented disrespect. He was the first president to be denied a hearing on a Supreme Court nominee, the first to be denied a hearing on his budget, and the first to be asked to show his birth certificate. Obama faced more than 500 filibusters.

The shabby treatment of Obama is part of why the GOP is saddled with Donald Trump as its presidential nominee too. Republicans would like to believe that Trump just fell out of the sky, and somehow mysteriously became the nominee of their party. But that is not how it is. Trump is no anomaly. He is the monster that Republicans built. He is their Frankenstein’s monster. They own him.

I doubt history will look back, we seem to forget it as fast as it happens. Only partisan nutters will see it differently.

Hillary Clinton Won The First Presidential Debate, Polling Finds | Huffington Post

By a 27-point margin, 49 percent to 22 percent, Americans said Clinton did a better job than Trump. Twenty-two percent said neither had done a better job, while 8 percent were unsure.

A majority, 56 percent, said that Clinton displayed a presidential temperament during the debate. Just 34 percent said the same of Trump, who claimed during the debate that his temperament was his “strongest asset.”

Independents who were polled also favored Clinton, saying by a 14-point margin, 39 percent to 25 percent, that she won the debate over Trump. Forty-four percent felt she displayed a presidential temperament, while just 35 percent said the same of Trump.

 

[Papageorgio]

Really?

You must be a blue collar uneducated worker.

More of your bigotry and liberal intolerance of others. At least he isn't a drug dealer or tax evader, oh wait that is acceptable to you.

History will look back and note that Republicans in Congress treated President Obama with unprecedented disrespect. He was the first president to be denied a hearing on a Supreme Court nominee, the first to be denied a hearing on his budget, and the first to be asked to show his birth certificate. Obama faced more than 500 filibusters.

The shabby treatment of Obama is part of why the GOP is saddled with Donald Trump as its presidential nominee too. Republicans would like to believe that Trump just fell out of the sky, and somehow mysteriously became the nominee of their party. But that is not how it is. Trump is no anomaly. He is the monster that Republicans built. He is their Frankenstein’s monster. They own him.

I doubt history will look back, we seem to forget it as fast as it happens. Only partisan nutters will see it differently.

Hillary Clinton Won The First Presidential Debate, Polling Finds | Huffington Post

By a 27-point margin, 49 percent to 22 percent, Americans said Clinton did a better job than Trump. Twenty-two percent said neither had done a better job, while 8 percent were unsure.

A majority, 56 percent, said that Clinton displayed a presidential temperament during the debate. Just 34 percent said the same of Trump, who claimed during the debate that his temperament was his “strongest asset.”

Independents who were polled also favored Clinton, saying by a 14-point margin, 39 percent to 25 percent, that she won the debate over Trump. Forty-four percent felt she displayed a presidential temperament, while just 35 percent said the same of Trump.

WTF does this have to do with history, who won the debate in the 1940 election? How about the 36 election?

I don't care who won the debate, Some labeled this "The Great Debate". I labeled it Dumb and Dumber.