Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

Tonight the gloves are coming off.

Kinda nice to see that it's a 3 hour debate since there's roughly 10384567393484 people participating in it, maybe they'll have a bit more time to get into actual details this time.

I wonder if Bobby Jindal will take some time out to explain that he's white.

I hope that they take time to discuss how they will deal with the "Slay is a racist' issue.

Instead of attacking each other they should all just dog pile on Hilary and make her react to all 11 of them.

Go trump!!!!

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!GO TRUMP!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

**** THE ESTABLISHMENTS!

Because Trump being a fat-cat billionaire totally isn't one of the fat-cat billionaires that feeds this "establishment" of yours. Right.

Anyhow, going to count how many times they deflect onto Hillary Clinton when they're asked a question they either don't know or don't want to answer.

Originally posted by Robtard
Because Trump being a fat-cat billionaire totally isn't one of the fat-cat billionaires that feeds this "establishment" of yours. Right.



Do you know how stupid you sound?

Ha, the loaded question. Clever.

I've got my pizza and my alcohol on stand-by. The rules of tonight's drinking game is as follows:

- When Ben Carson brings up neurosurgery in response to a question about the economy, immigration and foreign policy, take a shot.

- When Donald Trump insults someone's intelligence in response to a question about he economy, immigration and foreign policy, take a shot.

- When anyone is asked specifically what their policy on X would be, and they respond by ranting about Obama, take a shot.

- When anyone is asked specifically what their policy on X would be, and they respond by ranting about Hillary, take a shot.

- If Bonny Jindal, John Kasich and/or George Pataki get to say anything, ever, take a shot.

Originally posted by Robtard
Because Trump being a fat-cat billionaire totally isn't one of the fat-cat billionaires that feeds this "establishment" of yours. Right.

Anyhow, going to count how many times they deflect onto Hillary Clinton when they're asked a question they either don't know or don't want to answer.

So far zero but apparently this kind of thought process makes you sleep better at night..

I also have a problem with what's his name defending the Kentucky woman. It's not a 1st amendment issue, that's dumb. She has a job to do and that's to follow the law. If the law somehow contradicts with her morals, get another job. It's very simple.

Appears you are clueless about the debate, Jindal and Pataki have been on for an hour already.

The debate doesn't start 'till 1700 PST. dur

Originally posted by Tzeentch
The debate doesn't start 'till 1700 PST. dur

Your dumb cause its been on since 5pm Central.

http://www.2016presidentialdebateschedule.com/2015/09/details-for-next-gop-debate-on-september-16/

What you're looking at isn't the debate, my son. 'tis just the warm-up.

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
Do you know how stupid you sound?

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
Instead of attacking each other they should all just dog pile on Hilary and make her react to all 11 of them.


Bad strategy.

Consider for the moment your reaction if that happened during a Democratic debate, and they all focused on Trump- you'd think, "Wow, they must be terrified!".

It'd be giving the opposing party tons of airtime on their debate, and then it opens the opposition to 'taking the higher ground' and just focusing on their policies on their debate.

Originally posted by Tzeentch
http://www.2016presidentialdebateschedule.com/2015/09/details-for-next-gop-debate-on-september-16/

What you're looking at isn't the debate, my son. 'tis just the warm-up.

6pm ET (5pm CT, 3pm PT)
First Round debate (1hr 45 min)
Candidates: Perry, Santorum, Jindal, Pataki, Graham (finalized Sept. 10)

8pm ET (7pm CT, 5pm PT)
Primetime debate (3 hours)
Candidates: Trump, Bush, Walker, Huckabee, Carson, Cruz, Rubio, Paul, Christie, Kasich, Fiorina

1. Trump wins- The Donald crushes Fiorina with her record at Lucent and Hewlett Packard, especially firing 30,000 workers. He uses Brother Bush's record to break Jeb and he compliments Carson while attacking his questioning of his faith.

2. Carson- Carson will come in second by being smart enough not to take Trump on head on.

3. Christie- The oafish blimp will open himself up with a tirade against Trump where he gets hit with a Bridge one-liner.

4. Jeb- Does his best Time Immemorial fake tough guy routine and gets trounced.

Says the yappy red lettered troll from Brooklyn.

Huh, Donald thinks that he'll get alone with foreign world leaders better and thus the problems will go away... even while in the same breath accusing them of tearing into and taking advantage of the US.

I... don't think getting along works that way, and I don't think comments like that encourage anyone to get along with us.

It does if they respect you, which no one respects Obama.

Its called having a set of balls Q, which you must have lost along your path.

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
It does if they respect you, which no one respects Obama.



Uh huh. That's why everyone does what Putin wants, right? Because everyone respects what a hard man he is.


Frankly, this whole 'act strong, and that'll get respect and get what you want' approach to diplomacy is just wishful thinking. Bush blustered and threatened Iran in order to get a nuclear deal, it didn't work. Obama coalition-built and talked, and got the same deal Bush wanted.

Talking and dealing works better than puffing one's chest, and what you view as a 'lack of respect,' others view as soft power. Our relations with much of the world have gone up during Obama's term, and 8 years of a more hard-line president who saber-rattled more often certainly wasn't causing things to fall into place.

No one respects a pussy.

No one respects bend over politics

http://i.ytimg.com/vi/O4s6Awz71as/hqdefault.jpg

first words out of trump's mouth

"first of all rand paul shouldn't even be on this stage, he's number 11"

god i love this guy

Originally posted by red g jacks
first words out of trump's mouth

"first of all rand paul shouldn't even be on this stage, he's number 11"

god i love this guy

Ron gets so mad too

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
No one respects a pussy.

No one respects bend over politics

And yet Obama's accomplishing stuff that the policies of those who do the opposite have failed at.

Am I supposed to respect lack of success over success?


Here's a phrase you might have heard: "I speak softly, but I carry a big stick."

It's from a famous US president. It means that if you've got power- like Obama does, like every US president does, the strength of the US doesn't just jump up and down with each election and at our lowest eb we far surpass anyone else a couple times over- you don't need to go around bragging, you can afford to speak soft, because people know you have the stick.


Obama isn't weak for being willing to talk and treat others well, or the occasional flub, you just view him as such because he isn't doing things your way, which is completely separate from his actual success.

He forced Iran to the table and got us what we wanted, not Bush. He did so by talking and strengthening alliances. His way worked when both methods were tried to get the exact same thing from the same hostile power.

Originally posted by Q99
And yet Obama's accomplishing stuff that the policies of those who do the opposite have failed at.

Am I supposed to respect lack of success over success?


Here's a phrase you might have heard: "I speak softly, but I carry a big stick."

It's from a famous US president. It means that if you've got power- like Obama does, like every US president does, the strength of the US doesn't just jump up and down with each election and at our lowest eb we far surpass anyone else a couple times over- you don't need to go around bragging, you can afford to speak soft, because people know you have the stick.


Obama isn't weak for being willing to talk and treat others well, or the occasional flub, you just view him as such because he isn't doing things your way, which is completely separate from his actual success.

He forced Iran to the table and got us what we wanted, not Bush. He did so by talking and strengthening alliances. His way worked when both methods were tried to get the exact same thing from the same hostile power.

Interesting bit from Cruz: He talks about how Obama will fight for his liberal beliefs, but accuses the house and senate republicans of pre-emptively surrendering.

An ironic contrast to our conversation here.

I'm not sure why you continue to mix facts. He didn't force Iran to the table and it was Iran that got what it wanted. The "talking" method has rarely worked and will rarely continue to work with certain countries and dictators.

Originally posted by Tzeentch
I've got my pizza and my alcohol on stand-by. The rules of tonight's drinking game is as follows:

- When Ben Carson brings up neurosurgery in response to a question about the economy, immigration and foreign policy, take a shot.

- When Donald Trump insults someone's intelligence in response to a question about he economy, immigration and foreign policy, take a shot.

- When anyone is asked specifically what their policy on X would be, and they respond by ranting about Obama, take a shot.

- When anyone is asked specifically what their policy on X would be, and they respond by ranting about Hillary, take a shot.

- If Bonny Jindal, John Kasich and/or George Pataki get to say anything, ever, take a shot.

So... are you gassed out of your mind yet?

Build the damn wall and shut the **** up.

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
Says the yappy red lettered troll from Brooklyn.

You're even worst than the moderators of this debate.

Put a muzzle on Fiorina!

And keep the rest on topic and in line.

Originally posted by LordofBrooklyn
You're even worst than the moderators of this debate.

Put a muzzle on Fiorina!

And keep the rest on topic and in line.

You took a shot me me yes? Then deal with it, or stay outa my thread, cry baby.

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
You took a shot me me yes? Then deal with it, or stay outa my thread, cry baby.

You can share that muzzle with Fiorina, Jerky!

"My thread"

The entireity of KMC belongs to ME the RULER of The House of El.

This debate is really disappointing, they have 36 minutes to turn it around.

Originally posted by psmith81992
I'm not sure why you continue to mix facts. He didn't force Iran to the table and it was Iran that got what it wanted. The "talking" method has rarely worked and will rarely continue to work with certain countries and dictators.

Iran came to the table when they were not with the previous method. We wanted an agreement with inspections- we wanted the exact same thing under Bush and Obama. We got the exact stuff that Bush was aiming for.

Even if you don't like the deal, it both got Iran to the table and got what the US administrations- and, y'know, every other nuclear power involved in the deal, it was a multi-party deal- wanted.

You're substituting your partisan dislike of the deal, for the simple facts.


Heck, do you consider every country in the deal weak? UK, France, China, Russia and Germany.

Are Russia, China, and Germany soft? They signed off on it too and thought it was good, and did not think they could get better.

Obama did literally have Putin on his side on this.


The talking method had an objective, and reached it. The 'show of strength' method.... had the exact same objective, at least according to what Bush was saying.

Was George W. Bush not being ambitious enough when he wanted just this kind of agreement? Or is the specifics of the agreement secondary to how it was made, i.e. the same thing would've been acceptable if it'd been achieved via shows of strength where it isn't via negotiation?


As for the talking method in general, Reagan talked and made deals with the USSR, Nixon went to China. Sure, they also did other stuff, but they still did a lot of talk. This aversion to diplomacy is not historically normal for the right, the Republican party has had it's share of good diplomats who used the same methods to good effect.

Walker continues to fade into the background. Anyone else remember when he was in second place?

And surprised Carson, current second place, hasn't gotten more.


Fiorina, the graduate from last time's kiddie debate, is doing pretty well making her presence felt.

You just said the US got what it wanted, now Iran got what it wanted too? Iran got 160 billion dollars regardless of if they keep their word. What did the US get? Just getting to the table? Wow! Iran won, deal with facts.


Now you're going to appeal to the majority as a desperation argument? In that case, the majority of the American public dislike the deal, so it sucks. Russia (mainly Putin), China and Germany have their own motivations for the deal. They don't have to think it's a good deal for the US to sign off on it.

You are coming off more and more biased by each subsequent post.


Reagan was different, nations all over the world knew he would act. Remember how many American hostages Iran released when Reagan became president? Completely different case.

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
Build the damn wall and shut the **** up.

???

Originally posted by psmith81992
You just said the US got what it wanted, now Iran got what it wanted too? Iran got 160 billion dollars regardless of if they keep their word. What did the US get? Just getting to the table? Wow! Iran won, deal with facts.

We got to the table, and then once at the table, got them to, (1) destroy most of their centrifuges for enrichment of nuclear fuel, (2) get rid of most of their nuclear fuel stockpile, (3) agree to multi-national inspections for a decade and ha half, and tie all of this to an international auto-snap back of sanctions.


You're still confusing whether you wanted it to happen, with whether the initial desired result was achieved.


Those were major concessions. You don't think it's worth it? Fine. It's still more than what happened prior, and it still happened.

That's the facts of the matter, and the opinion of value of that is something we can debate, but just denying what happened is silly.




Specifically, I'm trying to draw out your opinion on the other countries involved.




Conversely, the majority of the world like the deal, so it rules ^^

Also note, one of the major factions opposed to it is.... the anti-US Iranian hardliners.




They threw their weight behind it and are also involved in the sanctions, they weren't just on the sidelines. They thought it was a worthwhile deal for them to join in an effort to stop Iran from getting nuclear weapons.

Indeed, the fact is any of them could've relieved pressure on Iran by dealing with them and ignoring our sanctions, which would have been a way to gain Iranian oil, but Obama managed to convince them to join hands instead.





You are coming off more and more as using 'biased' to mean 'disagrees with psmith on whether something is worthwhile, or points out that something happened that he doesn't want to acknowledge.'

I am pointing out "Obama wanted this, it got done, in the purely 'did this happen as Obama wanted' sense, it was a success whether or not you think it was a worthwhile pursuit in the first place." If someone digs a hole in the ground, they're still successful in digging a hole even if you think it's pointless to dig a hole. Accusing acknowledging things that happened as happening as evidence of 'bias' is absurd. Accusing someone who has different priorities than you of being 'biased' because they simply value something that happened more or less than you without misrepresenting what happened is silly.



It's a semantic game of yours, it's a more weasel-wordy version of Time's absolute support, but I do think I prefer Time's way, it's at least more honest.




Way to dodge acknowledging that Republicans usee talky diplomacy often too, in some of their greatest successes. Reagan's nuclear treaties with the USSR- where there was zero chance of the US invading the USSR over non-compliance, as we all know. Nixon opening relations with China, and not under threat of force. Those were smart, highly successful moves using methods you don't like to acknowledge.

Countries over the world know how Obama will act... and they're still willing to make concessions in deals that their own hardliners don't like. They're still willing to sign on with him on multi-country talks to accomplish something he wants. Whether or not you like or agree with the objectives, whether or not you outright think they're dumbass objectives and he should have never pursued them in the first place, those are things that happened.

You'd think they would spend less time....arguing about how bad the other Republicans are.

We got merky "we promise" nonsense, and gave up 160 billion dollars, even if they mess up. I think you're confused about what "success" is.


How did you go from "we got what we wanted" to "also Iran got what we wanted" to "you don't think it was worth it"? You're grasping at straws. I didn't say it wasn't worth it or even that it was a terrible deal (it wasn't good but not terrible). I simply refuted your belief that it was a raging success for Obama and the US.


I think you proved my point about your bias. I was being sarcastic, using your "appeal to the majority" against you. So you're a biased apologist at this point, got it. Now we can move on.

Also, you don't actually have a poll for the "majority" of the world, but good try


They gained nothing and lost nothing on this deal so Obama didn't have to "convince" them of anything really. Everyone knows Putin is up to something.


Nope, I only do that when you begin to twist facts and then start grasping at straws when I call you out on it.


I'm calling you biased because you appear to belief anything is a success when Obama does something. You're also claiming that said "success" is a fact, and not just your opinion, which is also silly.


There are zero semantics here, and zero support for TI. I don't even read his posts. This is your way of running away from my claim. You frequently twist facts to support your conclusion, make excuses for politicians you like, and pass your opinions off as facts. So wait, maybe more like TI than I thought.


Uh, that wasn't a dodge, that was a simple fact. They were afraid of Reagan but Reagan used diplomacy when necessary and force when necessary. Again, different things altogether but I appreciate you ignoring the point and claim I dodged something.


Some countries acknowledged them, some did not. Stop saying "countries all over the world", because you're intentionally trying to give more praise than necessary.

Originally posted by Sacred Fire
So... are you gassed out of your mind yet? Oh yeah. My girlfriend, my Mom and I are ****ing sloshed.

Originally posted by Tzeentch
Oh yeah. My girlfriend, my Mom and I are ****ing sloshed.

I played this game in 2000 when the Democrats were embarrassing themselves. It's the same game, just substitute "Democrats" for "republicans".

Originally posted by Tzeentch
Oh yeah. My girlfriend, my Mom and I are ****ing sloshed.

haermm

Originally posted by psmith81992
We got merky "we promise" nonsense, and gave up 160 billion dollars, even if they mess up. I think you're confused about what "success" is.


And the destruction of the very valuable centrafuges, nuclear stockpiles, and inspections. The first two on their own increases the lead-time to nukes multiple times over.

Also, we didn't give up any of our money. Their money in their own accounts was freed.


You're still trying to conflate 'you didn't think the results were worth it/worth doing' with 'Obama didn't succeed at what he was doing.'




There's three ways I can interpret that.
One, you're refuting that the Obama administration got what it was aiming for.

That's factually incorrect.

Two, you think that concluding such a deal does not constitute a 'success'. That's playing a semantic game to define away 'success'.

Or three, "I simply refuted your belief that it was a raging success for Obama and the US." - you're acknowledging it was a success but now characterizing me as saying it's a 'raging' success, goalpost shifting that the problem was not that I noted it was a success, but obviously that I must be viewing it as too big a degree of success, which is an addition condition you're just now adding on (and also takes in additional context when you ignore the two physical aspects of the nuclear program that Iran is physically giving up for the deal).


It's a deal that Bush would've considered a success if he'd done it, because he was aiming for a nigh-identical one. And I think it'd have been a succeed if he had pulled it off.



I think you're greatly misusing 'bias' to the point of worthlessness.

You're trying to dismiss my arguments rather than refute them.





You do realize they're a country that has bought oil from Iran in the past, and could've been dealing with Iran this whole time if they wanted, right? They agreed to sanctions when they did not have to, and would have actually materially profited from breaking them.

So yea, Putin's up to something, but he worked in agreement with Obama to the benefit of Obama's diplomatic goals, which were concluded to Obama and Putin's satisfaction in this matter.




"Twisting facts," being stating what happened without dismissing stuff that doesn't agree with me.

It also seems to often include you adding in late in debates that the problem isn't what I'm saying, but how much I'm saying it.

If you've gotta keep adding stuff in order to 'prove' I'm twisting facts, you're the one doing the twisting.



When someone does something they set out to do, then that is a factual success in a very literal meaning of the word, yes. That is not a value judgement.


See, what this statement of yours here is saying is that you are using the word 'success' in the value judgement term, not the 'did someone accomplish what they set out for' term.

Yet in other parts of your post, you specifically say that you are not using success in the 'value judgement' way.


Which is it? The non-value "did someone accomplish which they set out to" way, in which case, objectively, yes, Obama did it, or the "value judgement, is the result positive enough," way, in which case, the value judgement is an opinion to begin with and thus crying bias is silly.


"You like X results too much, you're bias!" is not a useful accusation. I weigh values different than you,

Now, misrepresenting the facts due to bias is a more serious accusation... but like you're being clear here and emphasize here several times*, the problem isn't what I am saying happened, but that you think I think it is too much of a success.

I.e. your problem with me is my POV diverges too far from yours.

Excuse me for not finding accusations of bias for weighing things differently a particularly serious accusation.



*and where all your refutations are focused, as you do not actually bring up factual counter examples of events not happening as I say, but instead you bring up judgement-based counter arguments, where you insist something is not as valuable as I claim.











No, I frequently judge the value of the facts differently, and find some things you find damning to be not that damning.

You, notably, do not bring up counter-facts- You don't post numbers that contradict mine, you don't post events that show the events I posted happened different, or so on.


I present my opinions as opinions, but the facts that I post in support of them are independantly verifiable sources of information. When you deviate from the facts, I call you on it.

Other times, I simply disagree with the interpretations. "Talky diplomacy is as good or better as a more forceful approach," -Opinion.

"George W. Bush sought a very similar deal to the one Obama got, used a more forceful approach with more threats, and did not get a deal." - Fact.


I'm sure one can come up with counter-examples, or make arguments about how it's Bush's threatening that made Iran decide to take a deal now rather wait least a more hard-line president take his place- in fact, that's the counter argument I expected, and it's one that I can disagree with but is much more opinion based.


Ultimately, though, stating things that happened that are inconvenient to you isn't twisting the facts, and stating opinions based on them that you highly disagree with is definitely also not twisting the facts.


You need to stop trying to shut down disagreement with calls of bias when your opinions are threatened, it doesn't make a convincing argument.





Why would they be afraid of Reagan if they knew full well he wasn't using force, and was approaching them with words?

That's exactly the situation Obama's in.





Now there's an attempt to give it less praise than it's received. There's only one country officially against the deal in the entire world, after all.

Countries in support include Vatican City, the US, Iran, Russia, China, Germany, England, France, Saudi Arabia (you know, Iran's big local enemy)... major players literally from around the world (Note again how you're trying to say my commonly used phrase is 'too much' praise, goalshifting that rather than what I said, it's how I said it that is supposedly now the problem).

And, importantly, The US, who polled 59% in favor at the time.

Now, some nations are nervous about it but tentatively in support, it's not like everyone's enthusiastic, but the majority of the population even in the countries that are Iran's direct enemies and rivals are in favor save for one, and heck, the same 'not enthusiastic' can be said for the one nation that's leadership is against it, they have a large segment in support.

Now this is a matter that we can argue back and forth on and provide evidence and counter-evidence. Support has shifted on it since the deal has made- I can argue that's because of media campaigns against it, you can argue that's just people being more informed, I can argue the past history of support of said deals and how partisan the opposition is.... there's room for

But simply dismissing my point of view as 'bias' is, frankly, laziness on your part and doesn't demonstrate bias, but just your willingness to call bias rather than actually debate facts and accept that people can have different opinions on them.


Especially when so often you like to leave out the material facts posted when trying to present my povs as 'biased.'

It's always stunning how certain otherwise intelligent people have been completely hoodwinked by the spurious vaccine-autism link.

And even if vaccines did lead to a higher incidence of autism, how the **** is a certain percentage of vaccinated kids developing a very manageable disorder/condition worse than having an entire generation of kids susceptible to diseases our parents didn't even have to worry about?

Thought Rubio looked good.

This was one of the worst moderated debates that I've ever seen.

They will try and spin it in favor of Fiorina to push a narrative but I think there will be a backlash against her performance.

Originally posted by psmith81992
I played this game in 2000 when the Democrats were embarrassing themselves. It's the same game, just substitute "Democrats" for "republicans". You sound like there's something you want to get off your chest.

Anyway, we ended up getting shit-faced so fast that I didn't really pay attention to the debate, tbh. I think the Trump got stumped, but polls seem to be showing that he's a badass?

Um Trump destroyed everyone, got the most time and had the best answers. And the polls show it, so keep drinking.

Don't worry, I will. I think Fiorina took his booty hole in that company running debate though.

He got her back though. She kinda ruined two companies.

Compaq is gone and look at HP now..

http://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/2015/09/15/hewlett-packard-cut-up-30000-jobs-enterprise-unit/72331176/

It's true, I have zero confidence that she can get 'murica's economy on track.

America's economy will get back on track on its own with a hands off approach from Washington, higher taxes on the rich and lower taxes on corporations that provide jobs to Americans and less tax on middle class.

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
Um Trump destroyed everyone, got the most time and had the best answers. And the polls show it, so keep drinking.

Rubio really impressed me again. Even Fiorina did when she was talking about dealing with Putin.

Rubio and Carson were awesome.

Cruz/Paul alway miss, and I dont know why.

trump's facial expressions were the most interesting thing happening in this debate imo

Gonna have to scroll through some news sites before I say much. I watched parts, but was also taking care of a few things around the house this evening. So I wasn't glued to my TV. And the polarized reactions of the few of us here on KMC are rarely indicative of the general trend(s) in media and public reaction.

I have a friend - definitely in a Republican tax bracket - who almost feels forced to vote for a Republican because of his economics. It's an interesting dilemma. He dislikes Trump for expected reasons, but says that if Trump surrounded himself with enough of the right people, he'd probably vote for him in the general election. I'm not sure repping Palin for a Cabinet position is a great start, but I'd actually be interested to see what he tries to do if he gets the GOP nomination. A good VP selection or a few decisions to make it seem like he's not going to alienate literally everyone in the world who isn't his voter base would go a long way, but I'm not sure he has that kind of strategic tact in him. Because at this point, we've heard his blustering promises, and I'm not interested in quips or one-liners. So most of the time when I was watching the debate, I wasn't terribly interested in it, because it was a lot of posturing and sniping.

Originally posted by red g jacks
trump's facial expressions were the most interesting thing happening in this debate imo

Yea we really see now Trump is going all the way. People like Bardock can hope he will "**** Up" but if he can recover from telling Carly "your ugly" he can recover from just about anything..

People are fed the **** up with this PC world we live in. Carly was about to cry on stage just by having it come up. She is weak.

I saw Carson/Trump as Presidential Candidates, with Rubio as a VP and future President.

Santorum, fail,<-More Liberal then Trump
Christy is a fat chance
Huckabee is just bland boring example of old men that shoot dust for piss.
Ron Paul is boring and not as exiting as his father.
Jeb had some moments but a total miss on Trump
The dude from Minnesota was also a complete failure. "We don't need another apprentice." Like he rehearsed that as best as he could and still failed.

I'm not sure it's about being PC. I don't give a **** about being politically correct. That may be one of the few things I like about Trump. But I think he often mistakes being PC for being respectful. Being PC means tiptoeing around issues so that you don't upset a particular voter base or media group. I abhor that. Say what you believe. But that's on issues, not people. And it's hard to feel great about a lot of them being the next President when their primary interest seems to be insulting those around them, or coming up with the best line to blow up on social media.

That's honestly my chief disappointment. The news articles coming out so far are focusing on those one-liners. Not issues. Not positions. Not political dialogue. It's early yet, at least, and I've only done a few Google searches. Hopefully that changes.

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
Yea we really see now Trump is going all the way. People like Bardock can hope he will "**** Up" but if he can recover from telling Carly "your ugly" he can recover from just about anything..

People are fed the **** up with this PC world we live in. Carly was about to cry on stage just by having it come up. She is weak.

I saw Carson/Trump as Presidential Candidates, with Rubio as a VP and future President.

Santorum, fail,<-More Liberal then Trump
Christy is a fat chance
Huckabee is just bland boring example of old men that shoot dust for piss.
Ron Paul is boring and not as exiting as his father.
Jeb had some moments but a total miss on Trump
The dude from Minnesota was also a complete failure. "We don't need another apprentice." Like he rehearsed that as best as he could and still failed.



I don't hold Carson in such high regard as I did after the first debate. I like Rubio as much as I like Trump now though. It's gonna be hard for me to decide which of those two to actually vote for GOP candidate. Carla was crying because she was reminded of the fact she lost a child, TI. I wouldn't call that "being weak" but having a heart. Still, as impressive as she was tonight on several issues, she still doesn't measure up to Trump or Rubio, imo.

I thought she was about to cry when it came up about "look at that face", I didn't hear about her losing the baby nor did I see that part.

She spent to much time attacking Trump and Christy picked up on it.

Carson on the other hand when the idiot moderator tried to make him attack trump, he took the high ground and didn't which was very crafty. Of coarse since he didn't bite the idiot moderator didn't give him much time.

Bush and Trump had some good exchanges.

Carly would be a good cabinet member, and I like her, I just think she failed on her approach and I don't think she would be bullet proof like trump and carson are.

Walker is just a complete failure.

she looks a bit like a lizard to me

I like how all the candidates backed down on immigration though, except Trump.

**** all them flip flops.

Originally posted by red g jacks
she looks a bit like a lizard to me

I agree, peel that skin back, all green.

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
I thought she was about to cry when it came up about "look at that face", I didn't hear about her losing the baby nor did I see that part.

Carly would be a good cabinet member, and I like her, I just think she failed on her approach and I don't think she would be bullet proof like trump and carson are.



Here is the clip I'm referring to:


https://twitter.com/CNNPolitics/status/644340434697887745


I mispoke when I said she actually cried. I just remembered it wrong. However, if you watch and listen closely you can tell she had to make a conscious effort to avoid crying when she medntioned she lost a child to drug addiction.


I wonder what all the libs have to say to her saying this though:


https://twitter.com/CNNPolitics/status/644317983444238336

Cruz seems so ridiculously phony in all of his responses. Something about that guy just seems fake all the time. The way he looks into the camera constantly, his tone of voice, just doesn't come off as sincere.

I think Fiorina did well and may go up in the polls as a result.

I don't think anyone else will move too much. Everyone just kinda went at Trump this time, so Trump may go down a little because he was forced to be kind of defensive. But I imagine things will stay mostly the same for a while. I hope the next debate has fewer people, 10/11 is too many. It's weird when you have someone up there and they don't say anything for upwards of 40 minutes or so.

Well, Cruz is Canadian,afterall.

lol trump is clearly going to win


can't believe you retards are still in denial about that

You're kidding right? "Their money in their own accounts was freed"? Are you even going to attempt to be honest or objective anymore? So what you're telling us is, in a show of good faith, they froze their own 160 billion dollars? Come on Q99, this is sad. And if they want a bomb ala North Korea, they can still get one. If they mess up, they get to keep their money and we get to reimpose "Sanctions". Therefore, they won the deal.


No Q99, if you're labeling it a success and I'm not, you're playing the same "semantics" game I am.


Here you are, passing your opinion off as fact. You desperately wanting it to be a success doesn't make it a success.


I have been doing nothing but refuting them, while you keep trying to cop out with longer and longer responses that possess less substance.


See, this would be a valid post had you simply said the Iran deal was a success for Obama. Instead, you keep saying that the Iran deal was a success, whereas I constantly as you "for whom"? If Obama's idea of success was "talk", then it was successful. But the overwhelming majority do not find it a success. Hell, you can't even define "success" here until time goes by and Iran doesn't screw the pooch.



I like how you inserted "in the past", as if Russia depends on Iran for oil (a laughable notion). My point stands. We don't know why the other countries supported the deal but it doesn't look like anyone gained or lost from it.


I have frequently posted numbers that contradict yours. You offer apologist rebuttals or completely ignore the data.


And that is exactly what I've been doing to yout this whole time. You don't present facts, you present your spin on them.


Neither does pretending to be objective, while presenting facts in a manner with which your political affiliations agree.


Because they knew he would.


It's not goal shifting, it's refuting your "facts" and the way you present them. You say "countries the world over", then you list 8 countries and the Vatican(lol) in a desperate ploy to have those facts stick. If you weren't so intellectually dishonest with the way you present "Facts", this wouldn't be an issue.




How incredibly shocking that you failed to post this, since it questions your exact poll. That's the bias I'm talking about.


Here's a factual poll that was released barely a week ago. Educate yourself.

The rest of your post is just a rationalization of why people don't support the deal. Again, you intentionally try to post essays with the hope that nobody catches the b.s. I'm not saying you are anywhere as bad as TI because most of your stuff is factual, it's the 5% of bullshit that's obvious to spot to anyone who has the time to sift through your books.

I watched about an hour of the debate.

Seemed a bit...scattered and wild.

I got a few laughs from Trump.

So the debate delivered.

Originally posted by red g jacks
lol trump is clearly going to win


can't believe you retards are still in denial about that

Its true, I have never seen so much denial in all my life.

Its always the same thing "oh he will never make it"

He was center stage, people need to wake up

Originally posted by BackFire
Cruz seems so ridiculously phony in all of his responses. Something about that guy just seems fake all the time. The way he looks into the camera constantly, his tone of voice, just doesn't come off as sincere.

I think Fiorina did well and may go up in the polls as a result.

I don't think anyone else will move too much. Everyone just kinda went at Trump this time, so Trump may go down a little because he was forced to be kind of defensive. But I imagine things will stay mostly the same for a while. I hope the next debate has fewer people, 10/11 is too many. It's weird when you have someone up there and they don't say anything for upwards of 40 minutes or so.

And no backblaster, Trump will not go down in the polls as he won the debate. He handled the defense well and made people laugh, he also had specifics on his plans with China and Russia and Mexico.

Originally posted by psmith81992
You're kidding right? "Their money in their own accounts was freed"? Are you even going to attempt to be honest or objective anymore? So what you're telling us is, in a show of good faith, they froze their own 160 billion dollars? Come on Q99, this is sad. And if they want a bomb ala North Korea, they can still get one. If they mess up, they get to keep their money and we get to reimpose "Sanctions". Therefore, they won the deal.


No Q99, if you're labeling it a success and I'm not, you're playing the same "semantics" game I am.


No, you're trying to say the only reason to call it a success is bias.


I'm saying one can either judge it by values- in which case it's an opinion thing, in which case, we can hold opposing viewpoints without either misrepresenting the data- or in the 'facts what happened,' "Did A accomplish what A set out to? Yes/No? Yes!", purely factual.





Yeaaa, the "BS that's obvious," seems to be no problems with my factual 'bias' as you keep on insisting, but me drawing very different


Like, "Obama is a success on the economy." My reasoning is, "Most of the important numbers improved a lot, some did not , and a number that aren't great are still headed in the right direction, and here are how other people did in similar situations, and therefore I judge him a good economy success with some remaining problems."

Your objections regularly seems to be the "... and therefore!" bits. You can disagree without trying to attack the facts I'm presenting.

Accusing someone of just coming to a different conclusion to you is a misuse of the term bias.



(Also one recent post, you totally changed both subjects I was talking about, from 'Republican investigations' to 'All Democrats,' in order to accuse me of bias, and were caught in doing so. I don't know where that came from but it was a pretty big misrepresentation. So at least *some* of your 5% comes from either misrepresenting my stuff accidentally, or as a purposeful attack in order to discount my position, but either way, that stuff? Not cool)

Fiorina and Rubio were the clear winners of the debate imo. Despite looking befuddled a couple of times, Trump came out looking good and should still have a very firm grip on his lead in the polls.

Yes, because you're trying to pass off your definition of success as the objective definition of success, therefore it's bias.


What did it set out to do exactly? I've stated repeatedly that we gave Iran 160,000,000,000 for the mere promise of not building nuclear weapons. They can still get their hands on them, keep their money, and deal with whatever sanctions we put on them. That's not a success, that's a "let's get any deal done".


But you're not qualifying any of your statements. Instead, you're making general statements with no time limits, no context or anything. If you said "Obama has been a success on the economy the past 3 years", you would be correct, because he wasn't the first 4-5. This is a fact. Bush was also a meager "economy" for 5-6 years until he wasn't, and we only remember his failures.


I'm not disagreeing, I'm providing actual evidence that proves you're being misleading (intentionally or otherwise). Therefore, the only thing I can conclude from that is bias.


Show me where

Rubio cant gain traction, as he is a politician, and people are tired of all them.

Read an article that suggested Kasich came out well. Not because he had the best arguments or one-liners, but because he did things like discuss actual policies and at one point chastised the moderator for not focusing more on policy. For those bored at deciding who won the grade-school shouting match, he's emerging as a legitimately solid alternative.

I still think Kasich's main power is going to be as a home run VP choice for whoever gets the nomination, especially because he can help to bring Ohio. Something like a Rubio/Kasich ticket might have the best chance in the general election vs. Democrats.

Originally posted by Digi
For those bored at deciding who won the grade-school shouting match, he's emerging as a legitimately solid alternative.


The moderator was the one making the candidates pick the fights and attacking each, and if you didn't bite like Carson did not, he forgot about you.

Anyone with half a brain could see this, but wait, people are stupid so they missed it.

The moderator was a Cartman, and a idiot and should be fired.

He was, yes, you're right about that. It was bad moderating.

But these are people campaigning to become the most influential person on the planet. It's possible to rise above such stupidity without being timid. It was not a zero-sum game.

Do you agree with my comments on Kasich?

Originally posted by Digi
He was, yes, you're right about that. It was bad moderating.

But these are people campaigning to become the most influential person on the planet. It's possible to rise above such stupidity without being timid. It was not a zero-sum game.

Do you agree with my comments on Kasich?

Like I said though, Carson did rise above it and refused to attack trump and the moderator left him in the dust.

Kasich was good. But he is a politician and his words to me mean jack shit honestly. I want a guy in office who wants to win for the American people and not be a doormat for the rest of the world.

Trump didn't look bad at all but he didn't do as good as he did the first time around even though there was no Megan Kelly b**** to attack him this time. His facial expressions did make me laugh my ass off though.

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
Like I said though, Carson did rise above it and refused to attack trump and the moderator left him in the dust.

Kasich was good. But he is a politician and his words to me mean jack shit honestly. I want a guy in office who wants to win for the American people and not be a doormat for the rest of the world.



Yeah, Carson is smart. He knew not to attack him. Anyone who has gone after Trump has paid for it one way or another. Usually, by dropping in the polls.

I really hope someone from the Democratic side shines, because none of these Republican nominee's really has my vote. I didn't really see any leadership qualities from any of them. And its obvious we speak English in America DT doesn't have to remind us of this.

No wonder Europeans think Americans are idiots. English only , while they're speaking 2 or 3 languages on the norm.

Originally posted by Star428
Yeah, Carson is smart. He knew not to attack him. Anyone who has gone after Trump has paid for it one way or another. Usually, by dropping in the polls.

Sadly since the stupid idiot moderator did that to Carson, he ended up not doing that great in the polls..

I hope he is drawn, quartered and fired.

It was stupid to watch. Over on hero chat, those idiots thought it was the debators fault for attacking each other, clearly their brains are the size of their nuts.

Originally posted by Facee
I really hope someone from the Democratic side shines, because none of these Republican nominee's really has my vote. I didn't really see any leadership qualities from any of them. And its obvious we speak English in America DT doesn't have to remind us of this.

No wonder Europeans think Americans are idiots. English only , while they're speaking 2 or 3 languages on the norm.

And do you know why we only speak English? Because that is our language here. And the Europeans have 40 countries smashed together so they have to.

Very ignorant statement from you.

How many people in the UK speak more then one language

Oh Right, they speak English, the fastest growing language in the world.

Originally posted by Facee
I really hope someone from the Democratic side shines, because none of these Republican nominee's really has my vote. I didn't really see any leadership qualities from any of them. And its obvious we speak English in America DT doesn't have to remind us of this.

No wonder Europeans think Americans are idiots. English only , while they're speaking 2 or 3 languages on the norm.

Good luck at anyone other than Sanders looking anything but dumb from the democratic side. Europeans can think whatever they want, but their self proclaimed intellect isn't factually based on anything, it's what they'd like to tell themselves. We in America want English to be the dominant language, NOT the only language necessarily spoken. Also, it's funny when you equate bi/trilingual to intelligence. I suppose I can equate economic success to intelligence as well, which makes Europe (except for 3-4 countries) the equivalent of a retarded cousin.

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
And do you know why we only speak English? Because that is our language here. And the Europeans have 40 countries smashed together so they have to.

Very ignorant statement from you.

How many people in the UK speak more then one language

Oh Right, they speak English, the fastest growing language in the world.







Agree with everything you said here.

Originally posted by psmith81992
Good luck at anyone other than Sanders looking anything but dumb from the democratic side. Europeans can think whatever they want, but their self proclaimed intellect isn't factually based on anything, it's what they'd like to tell themselves. We in America want English to be the dominant language, NOT the only language necessarily spoken. Also, it's funny when you equate bi/trilingual to intelligence. I suppose I can equate economic success to intelligence as well, which makes Europe (except for 3-4 countries) the equivalent of a retarded cousin.




Agree. I always laugh at people who think how many languages someone speaks is a measure of their intelligence. Intelligence can be measured in many different ways. THe fact that they think how many languages someone speaks is the only indicator of intelligence actually indicates that they're lacking in intelligence themselves. And you're right, Europeans are usually the ones making themselves look stupid by doing this. I usually just laugh and ignore them.

My god Carly is "kid-gloved"

How many million times has the Donald's appearance been mocked and no one cared. I lost all my respect for her when she took a femanazi stand and made this a gender issue.

-Found myself agreeing most with Rand, Kasich and Carson on a few issues. Even Trump had a point or two that gelled with me, though he spent little time making actual points.

-Huckabee, Cruz and Rubio, they're like the oil to my water. They've just got to go.

-Bush is stale/boring, but he did well explaining and defending his points regardless if you agree or disagree. The only time he seemed to let his emotions take control was when Trump took a dig at his brother. Overall, I think Bush is most likely to get the nom at this point.

-Trump opening up with the clown show while entertaining, hurts the GOP overall. Rand did well in throwing it back without stooping to clownery himself.

-Didn't actually count how many times Hillary was named dropped, but it was fewer than the first debate. Which imo, is smart of them.

Originally posted by Facee
I really hope someone from the Democratic side shines, because none of these Republican nominee's really has my vote. I didn't really see any leadership qualities from any of them. And its obvious we speak English in America DT doesn't have to remind us of this.

No wonder Europeans think Americans are idiots. English only , while they're speaking 2 or 3 languages on the norm.

From someone who actually does speak 3 languages and from where most ppl at the very least speak 2, I can tell you that # of languages is not a good metric for intellect.

Originally posted by Robtard
-Found myself agreeing most with Rand, Kasich and Carson on a few issues. Even Trump had a point or two that gelled with me, though he spent little time making actual points.

-Huckabee, Cruz and Rubio, they're like the oil to my water. They've just got to go.

-Bush is stale/boring, but he did well explaining and defending his points regardless if you agree or disagree. The only time he seemed to let his emotions take control was when Trump took a dig at his brother. Overall, I think Bush is most likely to get the nom at this point.

-Trump opening up with the clown show while entertaining, hurts the GOP overall. Rand did well in throwing it back without stooping to clownery himself.

-Didn't actually count how many times Hillary was named dropped, but it was fewer than the first debate. Which imo is smart of them.

Bush is already down in the polls, sometimes I wonder if you think saying "Trump will never make it" enough it might come true.

It has actually proved the opposite, the more that people say it, the higher he goes, so keep saying it brah.

The clown show didn't start with Trump, again, are you blind, it was the moderator who started the clown show.

Originally posted by Nibedicus
From someone who actually does speak 3 languages and from where most ppl at the very least speak 2, I can tell you that # of languages is not a good metric for intellect.

HAHAHAHAHA, SOLID GOLD

IN HIS FACE!

I don't think Carson is indicative of my point, though. I'm not saying they shouldn't be aggressive. I'm saying they shouldn't be going out of their way to be insulting to the others on the stage. Carson was and is too timid to shine in these things, but his is not the only way to rise above the nonsense. For what it's worth, I've seen a couple articles saying he came away unscathed. Perhaps not a winner, but as someone who can continue to climb quietly in the polls.

Kasich might get my vote; I doubt any of the others would. But he's a successful sitting Governor, despite having some detractors (as everyone does). So he actually has some credibility behind his statements and ability to lead.

On to other things, here's an article about fact-checking some of the night's claims:
http://news.yahoo.com/fact-check-whos-trump-bush-clash-014319916--election.html#

I also saw another interesting article (that I can't find now), about Trump's unwillingness to define certain policies. Statements like "We're going to be winners again. Nobody is going to mess with us." are substitutes for foreign policy, for example. Clearly he's shown that a significant portion of his voter base doesn't care about such things. But we're all deluding ourselves into thinking it won't cost him votes at some point. As a case-in-point, take a look at a line from TI on this page:
I want a guy in office who wants to win for the American people and not be a doormat for the rest of the world.

Trump's approach clearly works here. I just think speaking in platitudes will only get him so far, and as yet, I don't really know how he stacks up on certain issues.

I wont vote for a politician next year.

Ill vote for Trump/Carson or Carly.

If its Bush vs Sanders, Ill vote for Sanders. I cant stand these horrible backstabbing lying sob's anymore.

Thats it. Politicians are done in my book

Look what they did the past two years and in the house and senate.

Nothing changed, it was all lies.

Everything they do is lie, I dont care what they say up their, its all full of shit.

Obama lied about everything about Obama care.

Hilary Lied about all things, and so did Bill, they can all rot.

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
Bush is already down in the polls, sometimes I wonder if you think saying "Trump will never make it" enough it might come true.

It has actually proved the opposite, the more that people say it, the higher he goes, so keep saying it brah.

The clown show didn't start with Trump, again, are you blind, it was the moderator who started the clown show.

It's till too early to call and my "I think Bush will end up with the nom" was my opinion, not stating facts.

You need to not act like a angry child every time someone doesn't join you in licking Trump's platinum lined anus.

Incorrect. Trump opened up with a childish dig at Rand. The moderator can do whatever he/she likes, the people up there choose to take the bait and act like a clown. You and your "It's not Trump's fault!!!!" rants. Cry more, he's a grown man and he's responsible for his own actions.

Originally posted by Robtard
It's till too early to call and my "I think Bush will end up with the nom" was my opinion, not stating facts.

You need to not act like a angry child every time someone doesn't join you in licking Trump's platinum lined anus.

Incorrect. Trump opened up with a childish dig at Rand. The moderator can do whatever he/she likes, the people up there choose to take the bait and act like a clown. "It's not Trump's fault!!!!". Cry more, he's a grown man and he's responsible for his own actions.

And his actions are destroying everyone else.

Kiss my platinum lined anus

Carlies claim

"You ran up mountains of debt on business adventures with other peoples money"

HMMMMMM

I wonder who those people are that gave him all that money?

From Rich Fat Corporate/ Wallstreet Cats like yourself.


Gee did the term "risky investment" ever mean "guaranteed return on investment"

Its funny to see a capitalist who failed dig at another one who succeeded.

Bush did shyly blame Obama for the Iraq troop withdrawal, so you two do have that in common.

Carly and Trump going at each other's business acumen while it made me laugh, again, not good for the party overall.

Trump did make her silently rage though, when he was talking about HP's failures. You could see the stress/rage on her jawline while he ranted.

Donald Trump won't even win the Republican nomination and you can quote me on that.

I was once told by an Air-Force Captain that what makes America so successful is our military might not our intellectual scholars.

Also, I see a lot of countries ahead of us in the education department.
https://rankingamerica.wordpress.com/category/education/

Originally posted by Facee

No wonder Europeans think Americans are idiots. English only , while they're speaking 2 or 3 languages on the norm.

Originally posted by Nibedicus
From someone who actually does speak 3 languages and from where most ppl at the very least speak 2, I can tell you that # of languages is not a good metric for intellect.

Face, nice dodge here, but we wont forget about it.

Originally posted by Robtard
Bush did shyly blame Obama for the Iraq troop withdrawal, so you two do have that in common.

Carly and Trump going at each other's business acumen while it made me laugh, again, not good for the party overall.

Trump did make her silently rage though, when he was talking about HP's failures. You could see the stress/rage on her jawline while he ranted.

Oh yea, she was mad as hell

In terms of business success trump outranks her 10000000/1.

Even on CNN this morning, they are saying Trump rocked it.

Originally posted by Facee
Donald Trump won't even win the Republican nomination and you can quote me on that.

I was once told by an Air-Force Captain that what makes America so successful is our military might not our intellectual scholars.

Also, I see a lot of countries ahead of us in the education department.
https://rankingamerica.wordpress.com/category/education/

When poor students are removed the United States ranks first in every major education category.

When people talk about education reform they really need to address the issue of poverty in America.

P.S. You are the UGLIEST poster in KMC history!

Its amazing to see the difference between Carlie and Hilary.

If it was Carly vs Hilary, Hill would be absolutely destroyed.

Originally posted by LordofBrooklyn

When poor students are removed the United States ranks first in every major education category.

does this math also remove the underclass figures from competing nations?

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
Even on CNN this morning, they are saying Trump rocked it.

That should scare you. Because he had very little substance and relied on vague replies multiple times, when he wasn't deflect-attacking someone.

eg I think it was Rubio who asked how he'd be ready to lead as POTUS from day one, regarding his lack of political knowledge and statecraft, he gave his "I'll have the best people (didn't actually name anyone) and I'll know what I need to know by then.", typical BS type of answer.

Do you really want a president just because he's loud, obnoxious and trollishly amusing?

Originally posted by Digi
I don't think Carson is indicative of my point, though. I'm not saying they shouldn't be aggressive. I'm saying they shouldn't be going out of their way to be insulting to the others on the stage. Carson was and is too timid to shine in these things, but his is not the only way to rise above the nonsense. For what it's worth, I've seen a couple articles saying he came away unscathed. Perhaps not a winner, but as someone who can continue to climb quietly in the polls.

Kasich might get my vote; I doubt any of the others would. But he's a successful sitting Governor, despite having some detractors (as everyone does). So he actually has some credibility behind his statements and ability to lead.

On to other things, here's an article about fact-checking some of the night's claims:
http://news.yahoo.com/fact-check-whos-trump-bush-clash-014319916--election.html#

I also saw another interesting article (that I can't find now), about Trump's unwillingness to define certain policies. Statements like "We're going to be winners again. Nobody is going to mess with us." are substitutes for foreign policy, for example. Clearly he's shown that a significant portion of his voter base doesn't care about such things. But we're all deluding ourselves into thinking it won't cost him votes at some point. As a case-in-point, take a look at a line from TI on this page:
I want a guy in office who wants to win for the American people and not be a doormat for the rest of the world.

Trump's approach clearly works here. I just think speaking in platitudes will only get him so far, and as yet, I don't really know how he stacks up on certain issues. yea but then on the other hand, politicians often make a bunch of specific promises during the campaign trail only to abandon them later on...

so maybe sticking to just speaking in platitudes is paradoxically the more honest approach to politics

Originally posted by red g jacks
yea but then on the other hand, politicians often make a bunch of specific promises during the campaign trail only to abandon them later on...

so maybe sticking to just speaking in platitudes is paradoxically the more honest approach to politics

Bernie is the only one I've seen who has outright stated that he won't be able to do many things in the White House due to the political climate. A bit depressing, but honest.

Anyway, I disagree with your statement, because speaking in platitudes isn't more or less honest; it's just meaningless. Helping us to "win" more, for example, is an unfalsifiable statement. I'd at least rather hear what a candidate wants to do, even knowing that political forces won't allow them to complete the majority of their agenda. It's still better than having no idea what a candidate's policies are, and the possibility that specific policy details don't actually exist for that candidate, as I suspect they don't for Trump on many key issues.

i think what trump wants to do is pretty clear

he wants to win

and he's smart enough to realize that any specific policy he proposes will be put under the microscope by the left and the establishment right who want desperately to derail his campaign and his odds of winning the nomination

so in reality there's little for him to gain by getting specific with regard to his policies... 1) because yea some of it is just bluffing and he doesn't have all the answers and 2) because even where he does, it will be more of a liability to him than something that will help him gain traction. he's already coasting on a huge lead thanks to his vague platitudes and sentiments that a large portion of the population identify with... he doesn't want to risk that by going out on a limb with some specific policy points for the media to spend the next few months tearing apart

Or he just doesn't have them, nor the understanding needed to form them. I'd love to believe your interpretation, but I think it gives him way more credit than he is currently due. Because he won't lose his base by coming out with specifics. But I do think he'll fail to galvanize many whom he'll eventually need to win the nomination and general elections.

What a scary concept having Trump in control of the worlds greatest military force.

Am I the only person wondering where all of the Democratic Presidential candidates are? It's as if the upcoming election has been set up for the Republicans to sweep. I mean can it be any more obvious, or am I just imagining things?

i think you're giving his base more credit than they're due

they can absolutely be lost if it seems like trump is losing it... they're like a bunch of moths attracted to the light

i do think he lacks some of the specifics for some of his policies... and that's cause they're outrageous to begin with

but he embraces them to win over the moths who somehow think we can extort mexico into building a wall and use protectionist trade policies to bring back jobs from china... i have little doubt that he doesn't intend on following through with these policies... and i think the more specific he gets the more silly they will look and then he stands to lose some of his shine... and maybe the moths will gravitate over to carson instead... insert blacklight joke here

Well, October 13th will be the CNN Democrat debate... So who knows where they are. Republicans have like a million candidates so they need all this extra time.

Originally posted by Stoic
Am I the only person wondering where all of the Democratic Presidential candidates are? It's as if the upcoming election has been set up for the Republicans to sweep. I mean can it be any more obvious, or am I just imagining things?

No, they're just not worried. When you have a guy like Trump leading the party its pretty obvious the party is a joke at this point.

Originally posted by Kento
Well, October 13th will be the CNN Democrat debate... So who knows where they are. Republicans have like a million candidates so they need all this extra time. lol

that's sure to be mind-numbingly boring

i'm sorry but the democrats only remotely interesting candidate is bernie sanders

and he would be a 2nd tier rand paul type personality in the republican roster

his old crotchety shouting jewish balding socialist shtick gets old after about 20 mins tbh

he's basically a less charming, unfunny larry david

don't get me wrong... policy wise he's my favorite. but i doubt i'll tune in to watch this debate

Originally posted by Facee
What a scary concept having Trump in control of the worlds greatest military force.

I know. I shudder at the thought. Back in the 50's, 60's, and even 70's he would have made an okay President (maybe), but in a time that the leader of the US needs to consider every action, and word that comes out of their mouth? Donald is a poor choice IMO. Not nearly as bad as Kanye West but this is a guy that doesn't seem to consider anything that falls out of his mouth. What's really scary, is that many of the candidates appear to be dumb as shit in terms of general knowledge. Maybe they should all have to appear on Jeopardy just to give voters an idea of who they're backing.

Originally posted by Facee
What a scary concept having Trump in control of the worlds greatest military force.

Coming from the guy who said speaking more languages means you are more intelligent.

Do you know utterly stupid you sound right now.

Did you think the same thing about Obama or Bush?

What about Hilary or Sanders?

Hilary can't even keep her email addresses safe.

And knowing you, you would vote for her.

What has Trump ever said that makes you think he cannot control the military?

Originally posted by red g jacks
lol

that's sure to be mind-numbingly boring

i'm sorry but the democrats only remotely interesting candidate is bernie sanders

and he would be a 2nd tier rand paul type personality in the republican roster

his old crotchety shouting jewish balding socialist shtick gets old after about 20 mins tbh

he's basically a less charming, unfunny larry david

don't get me wrong... policy wise he's my favorite. but i doubt i'll tune in to watch this debate I only watched the GOP debate cause I was bored...and seen it all over the place before it came on

I probably won't even remember about the Democratic debate. Cause they haven't been posted everywhere, and GOP has already had two debates...

Have the Democrats had a debate yet?

No they haven't, Hilary is running scared of Bernie. She will talk to Ellen, but not to the media or her rivals.

If Hillary ends up with the nomination, do you think your meltdown will hit all the way to 11, or are you saving that in case she wins the Presidency?

If sanders doesn't would you ever stop crying?

While I prefer Sanders over Hillary, I still don't know a lot about the others. O'Malley seems on he surface like he might be decent. But again, don't know.

So no, I've not utterly invested in anyone at this moment, still too early.

number 1 reason i don't want hillary to be prez: i don't want to have to constantly listen to her robotic ass stumble through 4-8 years of interactions with human reporters and political opponents

it's like the voice from my GPS wants to be president

Originally posted by Robtard
While I prefer Sanders over Hillary, I still don't know a lot about the others. O'Malley seems on he surface like he might be decent. But again, don't know.

So no, I've not utterly invested in anyone at this moment, still too early.

So you have just invested in taking digs at me about trump. But then you deflect onto "well donuts I have not decided yet."

At least pony up and stand with sanders.

Originally posted by red g jacks
number 1 reason i don't want hillary to be prez: i don't want to have to constantly listen to her robotic ass stumble through 4-8 years of interactions with human reporters and political opponents

it's like the voice from my GPS wants to be president

I agree that voice can kill babies.

Originally posted by psmith81992
Yes, because you're trying to pass off your definition of success as the objective definition of success, therefore it's bias.


...

I've presenting two definitions. By one, he objectively succeeded what he was trying to accomplish. That is a success.

By the other, a value judgement, it can be judged differently, thus I view it as a success (and so do Obama and a lot of other world leaders).


Under neither definition of the word success am I misrepresenting anything. You're either accusing me of bias for saying something that happened, happened, or accusing me of bias for holding one of the two major stances of the issue as an opinion.


He accomplished something that you may not view as worthwhile, but stop pretending anyone calling it as success is biased or misrepresenting the facts, rather than simply judging it different than you.










Ah hem, hello? The first 4-5 years? This is the crap I've been trying to get you to back up.

The unemployment began going down in 2010. He took office in 2009. A year and some change (during which time he also stopped it from going up, which it was doing in an uncontrolled fashion when he stepped in). The stimulus was passed in 2009, and is credited with saving 3.3 million jobs by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office.


The US, indeed, recovered faster than *every* country but Germany. We're number two in recovery speed.

http://i.huffpost.com/gen/1668997/thumbs/o-US-ECONOMIC-RECOVERY-570.jpg

In what way is "the major unemployment number start going down in 2010' five years of doing nothing or not helping?

You have asserted this repeatedly, but the numbers you're using remain unclear. Where's this chart that says numbers didn't start going down in 2010, and keep going down til now?



I've asked you for charts and elaborations for this 4-5 year numbers a half dozen times and you haven't provided them.




Original post

Exact quote: "Nope. Heck, why do you even try on the Benghazi thing? It just makes you look bad and desparate, trying to attack on something where she was repeatedly found to have done no wrongdoing by your own party."

My words to Time, a known Republican: Your party and no wrongdoing. Which is what the Republican-lead investigations found, that it was preventable (which I mentioned in other posts and fully admit, as does Hillary) but there was nothing criminal.

Your post

" My bias or lackthereof has nothing to do with you being an apologist. You claimed not even democrats blame Hilary for Benghazi, I gave you links that state the opposite. What is the excuse this time?"


You just completely changed the subject from which party I was talking about, what I was saying was or wasn't happening away from legal wrongdoing to who blames whom, moved it to an absolute statement about the entire party somehow, and then accused me of having bias for doing so.


And kept it up for a few pages, even after I pointed out and quoted what I actually said in the first post. So you didn't listen to my replies either.






Adam Savage once said, "I reject your reality and substitute my own," but flat-out rewriting someone's argument in whole cloth changing the subject, the action, and the scale all at the same time.


It'd be like going from, "A specific group of Obama administration people say Donald Trump is a jerk," to "You said the entire Republican party thinks Donald Trump is in financial trouble!" in order to make an accusation. It changes almost the entirety of the original save for 'Donald Trump'.


Seriously, what kind of BS was that? Do you have any idea how much of your own believability and respectability as a debater you took out and shot right there, in choosing to not only change the statement but then run with it?

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
Coming from the guy who said speaking more languages means you are more intelligent.



Exactly. LOL.






I know, right. Dems are just making stuff up about Trump because he has them worried about the election because he's so popular. They're obviously scared because there's no basis for their ridiculous claims or perhaps he's been watching too much of "The A-Team" and it's fried his brain.

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
So you have just invested in taking digs at me about trump. But then you deflect onto "well donuts I have not decided yet."

At least pony up and stand with sanders.

The hell are you talking about. Typically I'll make a comment on Trump and you'll flip out like I personally insulted you. Even when making widely accepted accusations towards Trump.

Why should I, can you actually give me a legitimate reason? I like him and if he got it, I'd be fine with it so far, but what if one of the others more aligns with me?

I got a new name for Facee

"Look at that Facee!!"

Originally posted by Robtard
The hell are you talking about. Typically I'll make a comment on Trump and you'll flip out like I personally insulted you. Even when making legitimate accusations towards Trump.

Why should I, can you actually give me a legitimate reason? I like him and if he got it, I'd be fine with it so far, but what if one of the others more aligns with me?

There is Biden, Hilary and Sanders.

Take your pick pony boy.

Worst thing you can do to someone is ignore them to death. Time to put TI on time out. That's how you handle children. ☺

What will you do if Trump doesn't get the nom, cries foul like a diaper-baby and runs independent?

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
There is Biden, Hilary and Sanders.

Take your pick pony boy.


Hillary and Biden are fairly interchangeable to me, but I don't like sander's view on the fed or international trade deals, and both of those would be under his direct control and have a serious negative real world impact.

So, I like Bernie as a person, but I don't want him to be president as much as I want the two people who've got fairly solid senate and other position careers.

Originally posted by Facee
Worst thing you can do to someone is ignore them to death. Time to put TI on time out. That's how you handle children. ☺

Ha, nice

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
There is Biden, Hilary and Sanders.

Take your pick pony boy.

TI, do you really think that Donald would make for a good President in this day and age? If yesterdays debate was a litmus test, would you say that he passed?

Originally posted by Stoic
TI, do you really think that Donald would make for a good President in this day and age? If yesterdays debate was a litmus test, would you say that he passed?

In terms of what exactly? What's best for our economy? Absolutely. In other aspects? Probably not. But I don't think Hilary would either.

What did he not pass on?

He had specific answers on foreign policy.

Winning in trade which we lose.

Winning in foreign policy which we lose.

Winning for the military and vets which they lose.

Everyone here wants to dance around the fact we need to straighten this fcking country out.

Originally posted by psmith81992
In terms of what exactly? What's best for our economy? Absolutely. In other aspects? Probably not. But I don't think Hilary would either.

But wouldn't the leader of the free world need to be well rounded? I'm not bringing Hilary into this, nor am i arguing for he in any way, but Donald seems to point his finger at other peoples faults when he has no answer for the difficult questions.

wait a minute, who did he blame for anything other then Obama for the shitty Iran deal.

Originally posted by Stoic
But wouldn't the leader of the free world need to be well rounded? I'm not bringing Hilary into this, nor am i arguing for he in any way, but Donald seems to point his finger at other peoples faults when he has no answer for the difficult questions.

When's the last time we had a well rounded leader?

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
What did he not pass on?

He had specific answers on foreign policy.

Winning in trade which we lose.

Winning in foreign policy which we lose.

Winning for the military and vets which they lose.

Everyone here wants to dance around the fact we need to straighten this fcking country out.

Do you really believe that Donald is the one that's going to straighten this country out? I don't think the collective of both parties have the power, brains, or credibility to do that.

He's certainly one of the very few candidates who can. I really think Rubio could too.

Originally posted by psmith81992
When's the last time we had a well rounded leader?

Obviously never, because this country slid even deeper into the shitter. However, to blame Obama for all of the shit that was swept under the carpet before his time isn't or shouldn't be the be all and end all. They've all made critical mistakes.

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
wait a minute, who did he blame for anything other then Obama for the shitty Iran deal.

The Iran deal was horrible no doubt about it.