Presidential debate disappointment

[wittmeba]

I personally thought the debate was very disappointing. I don't think either side was strong or said much to persuade the general public in their favor.

HRC - she seems too much "about me" stuff. She prefaces many statements with "when I..." like she is looking for a pat on the back or gloating about something the did.

Trump - not wise to start the attack as he did particularly at the end of the debate. The end is what seems remembered most. He repeated himself too many times -- "doesn't have the stamina..."

One statement that stands out with me was HRC was emphasizing the need to stop wasting money and time of programs that are not beneficial or effective. That is exactly what we feel regarding expanding background checks, gun show and internet sales.

Neither side seemed focused on "the people".

[kelu]

I was baffled why he did not was on constant attack. I can get off the top of my head probably 50 subjects to make her look from bad to very bad, enough to talk non-stop for more than 2 hours.
At the same time, I have to remember that he is a master of the show. Maybe saving ammo for the future debates? Will be future debates?

[SHMIV]

The end of the last debate will probably be what everyone remembers, anyway. Maybe he wants to lull her into a false sense of security, so he can wallop her in a spectacular finale.

Something I read, earlier today, pointed out that this was his first one on one debate, and that he was debating with someone who had years of experience in debating.

I expect the last debate to be far more fun.

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

[ShotgunBlast]

Whether you like the guy or don't like the guy, think he has a chance or doesn't think he has a chance, you can probably agree that with him on that stage at least we'd have a chance of actually having a conversation about policy. At least it couldn't be any worse than what we experienced last night.

[kelu]

I like the libertarian party, but I don't think Gary Johnson is a real libertarian. My opinion.
Looks like all parties have been hijacked.

[OleMan]

Whether you like the guy or don't like the guy, think he has a chance or doesn't think he has a chance, you can probably agree that with him on that stage at least we'd have a chance of actually having a conversation about policy. At least it couldn't be any worse than what we experienced last night.

I knew this was coming - so predictable, and so useless. Ex-Gov Pothead could have lectured on domestic policy (legalizing illegal drugs) and foreign affairs (perhaps he now knows the location of Aleppo). And by the way, even the pundits say that Trump won the first part of the debate on the economy. When it came to foreign affairs, the "moderator", Lester Holt decided to enter the fray on Hillary's behalf, even debating with Trump. He questioned Trump and engaged in 'fact checking' at least 10 times; and questioned Hillary only twice. At one point Holt was wrong on Trump's position on Iraq - http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/09 ... ition.html

We would have had a lot more debate on policy without Holt going in the tank for Hillary, and helping suck up the available time. Trump has also said today that he will go after her in the next debate.

A little before lunch the reports on Drudge on on-line polls reflected the following:
Drudge poll, Trump 82.37 % Hillary 17.63
Time magazine, Trump 55% Hillary 45%
CNBC Trump 68% Hillary 32%

Fox News on line poll called it Trump 50% Hillary 35% No winner 15%

That may be on-line users only and not scientific but it represents a very large number of people - the Drudge poll is over one million people. Notably, Time and CNBC are relatively liberal. Heck, even Michael Moore says Trump won - http://dailycaller.com/2016/09/27/micha ... he-debate/

I have yet to hear you have any criticism of Hillary. You criticize Trump all the time, pump Libertarians, and give Hillary a free pass. This is a firearm owner's forum and Hillary is one of the very worst enemies of the second amendment, gun ownership and conservatives who would preserve the second amendment, not to mention appoint lots of judges who will not try to gut the second amendment and the right to self defense on every related case that arises. So where do you stand on Hillary, seriously?

[wittmeba]

^^^ I like your signature comment.


HRC is in the same rut as we already are. If you like where we are vote Hillary.

If not we need someone with a backbone to make smart decisions for the people of this country regardless of whether they hurt someones feelings or not.

[ShotgunBlast]

I have yet to hear you have any criticism of Hillary. You criticize Trump all the time, pump Libertarians, and give Hillary a free pass. This is a firearm owner's forum and Hillary is one of the very worst enemies of the second amendment, gun ownership and conservatives who would preserve the second amendment, not to mention appoint lots of judges who will not try to gut the second amendment and the right to self defense on every related case that arises. So where do you stand on Hillary, seriously?

I don't criticize Hillary on this forum because it would just be more of what everyone else says on here. Do you want a conversation with differing opinions or do you just want an echo chamber?

[OleMan]

I have yet to hear you have any criticism of Hillary. You criticize Trump all the time, pump Libertarians, and give Hillary a free pass. This is a firearm owner's forum and Hillary is one of the very worst enemies of the second amendment, gun ownership and conservatives who would preserve the second amendment, not to mention appoint lots of judges who will not try to gut the second amendment and the right to self defense on every related case that arises. So where do you stand on Hillary, seriously?

I don't criticize Hillary on this forum because it would just be more of what everyone else says on here. Do you want a conversation with differing opinions or do you just want an echo chamber?

Actually, the echo I keep hearing is Johnson, Johnson, Johnson - more like a broken record. Hence, my post. I guess you want a conversation on Johnson - maybe you should try a Libertarian forum.

[ShotgunBlast]

I have yet to hear you have any criticism of Hillary. You criticize Trump all the time, pump Libertarians, and give Hillary a free pass. This is a firearm owner's forum and Hillary is one of the very worst enemies of the second amendment, gun ownership and conservatives who would preserve the second amendment, not to mention appoint lots of judges who will not try to gut the second amendment and the right to self defense on every related case that arises. So where do you stand on Hillary, seriously?

I don't criticize Hillary on this forum because it would just be more of what everyone else says on here. Do you want a conversation with differing opinions or do you just want an echo chamber?

Actually, the echo I keep hearing is Johnson, Johnson, Johnson - more like a broken record. Hence, my post. I guess you want a conversation on Johnson - maybe you should try a Libertarian forum.

Go figure - people are going to talk about candidates they support. Sorry you don't like my choice.

[Snakester]

I bet a different Donald shows up at the next debate .

[Reverenddel]

All I can say, and I'll be brief, Trump could have DEVASTATED her when she was talking about him "...disrespecting women..."

By simply saying "Have you met your husband? Do you know about the lives of women he's ruined? Not rumors, but CONFIRMED?"

She would have been CRUSHED!

[Swampman]

Watched the first five minutes or so, until Holt lost control and the shouting started. Turned it off. Same re-washed platitudes we hear every four years. Nothing new to see here folks, move on.

Have several friends who will vote against the two party system. Argument is, the only way to rid ourselves of two parties is for enough people to vote third party so we at least get the "would-be's" on the debate stage. All well and good, but it won't work. We have a private "non-partisan" (Holt's words) corporation running the debates. Might as well let the Clinton Foundation run them.

I conclude that either Trump or Hillary will only have one term. Hillary will get to replace Ginsberg. That doesn't change the court. She may get up to two more nominations. Bring back "Borking." This presumes that we keep, or increase, a Republican majority in the Senate and that they keep their backbones and don't cave. Tall order.

Economy under HRC goes down the tubes. Taxes on middle class skyrocket and the rich get richer. Obamacare is replaced with Medicare for all (federal single-payer). Sound familiar? Under Trump, he will have to get his tax plan past Congress.

More middle-eastern refugees (550% increase under HRC?) means more jihad on our soil. How do you distinguish a refugee from an ISIS fighter? Foreign policy under HRC gets worse than it is already. China and Russia get bolder. At least with an unpredictable bombastic jerk Russia and China may think a little. Trump will likely be a foreign policy nightmare. "You're fired!" doesn't work on foreign dignitaries.

Pot-head Johnson (not a Libertarian), has a liberal millstone Welded around his neck. Poor choice Gary. Weld is about as anti-2A as they come. I don't care what he says now, his record speaks volumes. Johnson also speaks in general platitudes about the issues.

What to do. Was in Johnson's camp until I researched Weld. Packed up my tent and left. I'll vote, probably for Trump as the lesser of all the weasels. I won't like it, but as I see it, he offers the best possibility for economic stability.

We're just gonna have to wait and see.

[ShotgunBlast]

Another reason Republicans and Trump himself should want Johnson in the debates is what The Hill itself realized - it's a numbers game. Johnson is siphoning votes away from Clinton and Democratic groups are getting nervous enough about it to actually spend money and go after him. Johnson is popular with younger voters; a group that isn't likely to vote for Trump but really doesn't want to vote for Clinton like they did for Obama. The Clinton team is now trying to get both Barack and Michelle on the campaign trail as well as Sanders to try to wrangle this group of voters back into the Clinton camp. Good luck with that.

http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/29 ... ian-ticket

If not at the debate, then at some national televised interview, Trump should tell the American people that he would love their support, however he knows some people just won't vote for him. Instead of voting for Clinton he should tell those people to have a look at Johnson.

[MarcSpaz]

All I can say, and I'll be brief, Trump could have DEVASTATED her when she was talking about him "...disrespecting women..."

By simply saying "Have you met your husband? Do you know about the lives of women he's ruined? Not rumors, but CONFIRMED?"

She would have been CRUSHED!

Don't for get she publicly helped cover them up, bullied and threatened those women to help protect her "investment".

[MarcSpaz]

I have yet to hear you have any criticism of Hillary. You criticize Trump all the time, pump Libertarians, and give Hillary a free pass. This is a firearm owner's forum and Hillary is one of the very worst enemies of the second amendment, gun ownership and conservatives who would preserve the second amendment, not to mention appoint lots of judges who will not try to gut the second amendment and the right to self defense on every related case that arises. So where do you stand on Hillary, seriously?

I don't criticize Hillary on this forum because it would just be more of what everyone else says on here. Do you want a conversation with differing opinions or do you just want an echo chamber?

Actually, the echo I keep hearing is Johnson, Johnson, Johnson - more like a broken record. Hence, my post. I guess you want a conversation on Johnson - maybe you should try a Libertarian forum.

This seems totally unnecessary and not very becoming. No one has to go anywhere else. This is a close knit firearms enthusiast forum, not a political forum. If someone decides to have a political thread and you don't like what they have to say (or don't say) or you don't like someone elses opinion, too bad... don't read it. Don't start arguments. Don't tell people off. I think everyone will agree that debate is healthy; personal attacks are not.

Please keep it friendly.

[Swampman]

Like what @Shotgunblast said, the Dems are getting worried about Johnson because it appears he is siphoning votes from the Clinton camp. Saw a quote attributed to Obammy, "A vote for Johnson is a vote for Trump!" Also saw another guy arguing that the Republicans have taken over the Libertarian party. Johnson (R)/Weld (R). Hmmm . . .

Gotta love it when a plan comes together!

[OleMan]

"This seems totally unnecessary and not very becoming. No one has to go anywhere else. This is a close knit firearms enthusiast forum, not a political forum. If someone decides to have a political thread and you don't like what they have to say (or don't say) or you don't like someone elses opinion, too bad... don't read it. Don't start arguments. Don't tell people off. I think everyone will agree that debate is healthy; personal attacks are not.

Please keep it friendly.[/quote]
Marc, in case you meant the above to apply to me - I'm sorry that you feel that way. I don't start arguments or tell people off on this board. On rare occasion I have stated my opinion in a frank or blunt manner. Also that "don't read it" applies to my opinions too - don't like 'em don't read 'em.

In the Politics (All other non-firearms related) category, I started two new threads:
There are categories for politics on this forum.
Gary Johnson & Libertarians Thread
Trump & The Republicans vs Clinton & The Demos
With those two, then perhaps there will be an opportunity to post at will and perhaps have less high jacking of a discussion to tout another candidate; and maybe even avoid some hurt feelings.

Oleman

[bali]

A vote for Johnson is a vote for Hilary. Dont be stupid, ok?

[ShotgunBlast]

A vote for Johnson is a vote for Hilary. Dont be stupid, ok?

Not only is that mathematically not true, but it also highlights the underlying entitlement mentality of the failed left/right paradigm as if a particular party is entitled to your vote simply because they are not the other party and that is just not true. I thought this was a forum of people who can make choices for themselves and not get herded into a group mentality through peer pressure and ridicule. And I thought we could have these discussions and express our differences without resorting to petty name calling just because you don't like someone else's decision. After all, we don't tolerate that kind of decorum on any other part of this establishment. "Forget an AK, get an AR. Don't be stupid, ok?" "Glocks are ugly, get a S&W. Don't be stupid, ok?"