Debate thread comments live.

The left was innocent huh?

 

Your 2 pictures are worth more than thousands of words.
The unified RP/DP/MSM is responsible for both destructive and counterproductive Iraq wars.

 

I said the same thing. Debate after debate I thought Trump did "so so" or poorly and yet debate after Debate, Drudge said he won, and the primary results proved out Drudge. There is something about Trump that appeals to the mass audience.

I think it might be his refreshing honesty. Take the problems with inner cities, every political hack and consultant will tell you that the last thing you say in response to that is "law and order" and "stop and frisk". Yet, these are the solutions that Trump believes in, and he stated so clearly.

Now the hacks are sure he blew that answer, we will see in the subsequent polling. I'm telling you Trump likely did far better than the hacks realize. We know Trump is not politician and we are so tired of the hacks answers that frankly my eyes glazed over as soon as Hillary started answering. She has been spouting this crap for 30 years and has nothing but disaster after disaster to show for it.

Trump is right. She has a LOT of experience, but its all the WRONG experience.

 

Trump wasn't protected or pampered. Killary was similarly not protected from Trump's accusations. In the end she simply demonstrated her years of experience as a professional sleaze bag while Trump demonstrated his traits. Even "tag-teamed," he could have handled the debate better. Or maybe he couldn't have..

 

Yeah, it went downhill a bit for Trump after the first 10 minutes where Trump was actually hitting her hard on his positions and stances. Me? I would've kept it up oh boy. I'd love to debate Hillary and expose to the world what a corrupt fraud she is.

 

Clearly you only heard a small bit of the reasons. Let's review a piece of history since it has been forgotten by Democrats.

Prelude to war

I am only focusing on Iraq for this bit.

During the 90s, what did Clinton keep telling us? He wanted Congress to agree to a law to remove Saddam. And Congress handed him the power in a law.

Bush followed the same line that Clinton had followed. Really who has forgotten that Clinton waged war on Iraq an other countries over his two terms?

Oh some will say, but he did not invade. Well, we never got invaded by Japan nor Germany but we were at war with them.

War is not words. War is actions. Japan learned that lesson on December 7, 1941,

We had bombed Saddam enough that especially from his point of view, we were at war. Our actions proved it.

So in waltzes GW Bush. Did he jump all over Iraq in 2001? Had he wanted to, he could have used the law to remove Saddam. But he did not. Matter of fact, he did not invade Iraq in 2002 eifher. History tells us he did many things that year and part of the next to evade war.

Democrats forgot him giving Saddam his marching orders to get out. That is the purpose of the Bill Clinton law he had signed.

Bush called the operation "Iraqi Freedom" Therein lies the story of his invasion.

Bush had the faith and backing of the country. The congress hotly debated it. Hillary Clinton approved and talked us into it.

History is not complex in matters like this.

 

Who put boots on the ground for an invasion? Bush Sr. did it but only to repel Iraq's invasion of Kuwait. Clinton didn't commit ground forces in any significant numbers. Sending planes and cruise missiles is an entirely different matter than sending soldiers and ground forces. That's limited war. That's mitigative war. Ground soldiers occupying the country is invasion. That's a much much bigger operation.

It's fine if you supported Bush II's Iraqi venture. You're allowed to like it. But you can't change the history of what happened. Being in ambiguous "phases" of war but not war as you say is not the point. Invasion and occupation of the country is all out war. That's as war as you get before just total annihilation. Bush II started a War war.

 

Then 0bama has started wars in Libya and Syria. Just to be fair. I don't disagree with what you've said.

 

It was annoying then, it's annoying now.

That obviously didn't have an effect on people's opinions though... he won on two dozen websites. The 'experts' disagreed but the people have spoken.

 

Dude, they are all right leaning websites.

There are actually ways to do reasonably objective, statistically significant polls. And I assure you that when those come out, he will have lost.

The shear idiocy of people saying he won the Drudge and Brietbart polls, as if that has meaning is hard to take. Based on that idiocy alone, why would you want to put those emotion driven morons in charge of the country?

 

Wrong. He used a direct quote from trump saying she didn't look the part of the president. This was independent from the stamina BS he tried to spew. Donald is and always has been a misogynist. This isn't a newsflash. His comments about women affect more than half the population. Just because it's not relevant to you doesn't matter.

We can put the Hillary health thing to bed now, too. She stood up there and thrashed his fat, orange face in front of the entire world.

 

Fortune is a right leaning website? Time? CNBC?

Go on...

 

Yes.

Dude, they can do scientifically valid polls. They didn't even pretend to be doing that. They didn't claim to be doing that, with one exception... CNN.

 

Fine I understand you don't agree with his policy, but the fact is Holt tried to factcheck him and HOLT was wrong. And softballs to Clinton.

On that we certainly agree and I would add a danger to our nation's security and the integrity of the government.

No doubt, I was at least going to vote for him now...........

It did nothing of the sort while the REPUBLICANS were in control of the government and we were under their policies. Bush came into office at the very start of a recession, the slowdown leading to it beginning in the 3rd quarter of 2000 before he even won the election. And of course the dot.com bust and then 9/11. They did the right thing by passing investment and income tax cuts, taking millions at the bottom off the tax rolls altogether. Their mistake was phasing the in through 2006. The economy 2002-2003 while recovery was not recovery fast enough so they accelerated them in 2004, the peak deficit year at $400B, and the economy took off like a rocket and we had 52 months of full employment with average labor participation rates, middle class incomes grew and tax rates soared as a result. You know what the last Republican deficit was? $161B in 2007........a PALTRY $161B. THAT is the Bush/Republican economic record, NOT the lie Clinton told in the debate.

Then the Democrats took control of the government in 2007 and for FY2008 their first budget raised spending 9%, only that low because Bush threatened veto's of the proposed higher spending. The deficit that year hit $400B, up from that declining Republican deficit. The next year keeping Bush completely out of the process and delaying the budget until President OBAMA could sign it into law they raised spending 18% and produce a deficit of a WHOPPING $1,400B. Up from that measly $161B to that WHOPPING $1,400B in just TWO YEARS. And then of course their failed stimulus and increased regulations, and Obamacare and the recovery never occurred.

We were due for that recession after that long solid period of growth and prosperity under the Republican policies. The fact is the Democrats did exactly the wrong things and spent like madmen wasting hundreds of billions of dollars and have failed to even TRY to do anything ever since.

So THAT is what Clinton should have been called on by Holt, explain who with that record of total economic incompetent should the people want to put the Democrats back in control.

 

They set an interim date so there would not have to be an immediate pull out the long term agreement to thus be negotiated and that fell into Obama's lap and he no intention of doing so from the getgo rather using it to pull out the troops because HE wanted to not because the Iraqi's wanted them gone.

 

The vote was to authorize the use of our military force to remove Saddam from power, the policy that he could not be allowed to remain in power becoming our official policy at the hand of President Clinton. Hillary fully and without equivocation supported that policy, spoke in support of it by declaring Saddam could not be allow to remain in power and his government had to be removed.

And she was correct.

And now that she attempting to rehabilitate herself from that is just one more reason she can never be trusted to be the commander in chief, her own political power would trump any concern for the security of the nation as she has demonstrated already with her EXTREME CARELESSNESS in handling of our most classified information.

 

I do not remember a SINGLE democrat calling for an invasion and a ten year war

 

IMHO Clinton won on scoring points and being a policy wonk. But Trump didn't lose. All he had to do was survive and not give the MSM any ammunition and look more reserved and not engage in personal attacks. He did that. Clinton should have been able to knock him out and CLEARLY and DECISIVELY win the thing, she did not by any means. I think she did better enough that is wasn't a tie, but I don't think anyone's mind was changed, let's see what happens to Trumps momentum.

THEN we will see if now they are over the first Trump has learned a little and will have more free reign to go after her, and hopefully better moderators who do see their role as to be debating Trump or Clinton but pressing the ISSUES and how they will act as government officials exercising the public trust.

 

Yeah, after 3 days rest and Lord knows what pharma cocktail, she managed to make it through the debate, and then, skip all media out the door.

 

This woman got over pneumonia and then stomped all over donald's face. Standing the whole time, which cons thought would be impossible. Meanwhile, trump was slouching, constantly snorting, and had trouble paying attention to the questions.

I'm concerned about his health. He's not well.

 

no, it was to authorize the decider to decide to use military force to try and get Saddam to cooperate, once the inspectors told us no WMD... that should of been the end of it

.

 

I am not a Hillary supporter so that come back doesn't really bother me at all. In fact I agree on you assessment.

 

She was totally protected by Holt, no one pressing question and not one single follow-up question while he allowed her to go for about 5 minutes of pure and utter conjecture about why Trump has not released his tax returns. It was as if they both planned for it and she had her talking points at the ready and he just let her go on them although she has proof of nothing and certainly cannot read his mind.

 

Clinton didn't do it only because he failed to get his plan into operation. That did not change the fact that Bush INHERITED the OFFICIAL US policy that Saddam could not be allowed to remain in office. Bush, with Hillary's full support and assistance, succeeded.

So what was your alternate plan to remove Saddam from power?

 

You do remember the one making his removal our official policy? That that document authorize President Clinton to create an insurgent force funded, equipped, trained, armed, given logistical and intelligence support by our military with US funding for the purpose of removing Saddam and his government from power and then of course reorganizing a government to take over?