Author Topic: The First Debate - 2016  (Read 18203 times)

JoshuaD

  • Members
    • View Profile
The First Debate - 2016
« on: September 26, 2016, 11:19:00 PM »
Here were my thoughts during the debate. I posted them on facebook, but since we don't have a debate thread yet, I figured this was a good way to start one.


  • Stop and frisk is such a BS policy. Authoritarian BS.
  • Ugh, the no-fly list is also authorization bull*censored*. Hillary's advocation for expanding the consequences of that list makes me sad.
  • The birth certificate released by President Obama, 3 years after serving in the job, still concerns me. It has been very clearly digitally altered. (It's still available at whitehouse.gov)
    There is nothing racist about saying a Presidential candidate has to show that he's eligible to serve. There was no reason it should have been released after he was elected and in office. And I really don't understand why we are being given a digitally altered document.
    I believe he was born here. But it pissed me off that he wouldn't show us his credentials until after he was elected, and that the document that was finally released is unambiguously digitally altered.
  • I wish Hillary wouldn't use escalating language with Russia. The cold war is long over.
  • Mr. Trump: Cyber is not a noun.
  • Are you kidding me Hillary? Obama ran on ending the Iraq war and he took a ton of credit for it. You don't get to do that for 8 years, be secretary of state during the withdrawal, suffer the very predictable negative results of the withdrawal, and then blame it on W saying it was scheduled years prior to it happening and so that's that. The Iraqi government you referenced was left out to hang by this administration.
  • Not sure if I like the moderator getting in there as a fact checker.
  • <characterizing trump>Guys, if you want the truth about what I said (despite the video that shows otherwise) go ask Sean Hannity, the biggest Republican shill aside from perhaps Limbaugh.
  • He has a winning temperament, he knows how to win. Well that's that.
  • Trump didn't deny that he wanted to kill foreigners for insulting our soldiers; he just denies that it would start a war.
    Bloody hell.
  • Im pretty happy with this moderator.  It's a hard thing for a moderator to walk the line between being neutral and fact checking.  When he had a verified quote and Trump tried to deny it, I liked that he insisted on the quote without fighting about it.

I moved closer to supporting Hillary this debate, which is a surprise for me. I thought she handled herself well, and I thought Trump handled himself very poorly.

I am concerned that the moderator may have been showing a bias, but at the same time, his bias seemed to me to be against outright lies and against filibustering questions, so I liked it.

Fenring

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The First Debate - 2016
« Reply #1 on: September 26, 2016, 11:35:07 PM »
I caught a bit of it but I'll have to finish it some other time. On one particular point that I think is more important than its position amidst many topics would imply, I don't think the issue with rhetoric towards Russia is just a matter of 'escalating language.' I wish that's all it was. Best case scenario it's a boondoggle to requisition funds for defence that's not needed; worst case scenario war drums to escalate towards a conflict that's not needed. Potentially with a nuclear power. I wish there was some way to unambiguously get real intelligence about what Russia is really doing, rather than the reports put out by the White House. Similarly about the so-called provocations from North Korea. Stop-and-frisk is a joke compared to this issue.

AI Wessex

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The First Debate - 2016
« Reply #2 on: September 26, 2016, 11:36:34 PM »
A few general thoughts, then thoughts on a few of your items.  Hillary kept it focused and under control; Donald was Donald.  If you are already committed to either of them, you probably won't flip.  The undecideds (if there really are very many, as opposed to the greater number of reluctants) may have seen enough of the candidates' demeanor and "temperament". It's hard to believe that Trump won too many, but I think Clinton made some inroads.  The next debate will be interesting, because Donald will have to adjust.  Conway says he held back too much, rather than he should have prepared better.  The topic Donald himself said he held back on this time, but might not in the next debate, is Bill Clinton's infidelities.  As if Hillary can't rattle off Trump's self-declared prowess with unaffiliated ladies.

One of her better moments that won't be highlighted and probably wasn't even noticed by Trump was when she spoke directly to the camera to our allies.  They are watching this election with great concern that America's loyalties are up to the highest bidder if Trump wins.  They need reassurance.

Quote
Ugh, the no-fly list is also authorization bull*censored*. Hillary's advocation for expanding the consequences of that list makes me sad.
Hmmm, how do you explain that someone is too dangerous to get on an airplane but not too dangerous to own as many weapons as they like?

Quote
The birth certificate released by President Obama, 3 years after serving in the job, still concerns me. It has been very clearly digitally altered. (It's still available at whitehouse.gov)
There is nothing racist about saying a Presidential candidate has to show that he's eligible to serve. There was no reason it should have been released after he was elected and in office. And I really don't understand why we are being given a digitally altered document.
I believe he was born here. But it pissed me off that he wouldn't show us his credentials until after he was elected, and that the document that was finally released is unambiguously digitally altered.
I call bull*censored* on this one.  If you really believe that it was digitally altered, explain the "chain of control" and the fact that nobody can be found who actually was involved who will admit it.  Wouldn't it be worth $mmmmm to them to confess to FOX that they know it was a fake.  You're leaning too far.

Quote
Are you kidding me Hillary? Obama ran on ending the Iraq war and he took a ton of credit for it. You don't get to do that for 8 years, be secretary of state during the withdrawal, suffer the very predictable negative results of the withdrawal, and then blame it on W saying it was scheduled years prior to it happening and so that's that. The Iraqi government you referenced was left out to hang by this administration.
I don't see why both can't be true.  It was W's negotiated withdrawal, and it was something that Obama fully supported.

Quote
Not sure if I like the moderator getting in there as a fact checker.
I wish he had gotten in there sooner and more aggressively to shut down the interruptions.  Even so, I think he did a pretty good job with the questions he asked and letting the back and forth work itself out.

Quote
<characterizing trump>Guys, if you want the truth about what I said (despite the video that shows otherwise) go ask Sean Hannity, the biggest Republican shill aside from perhaps Limbaugh.
Duh, as if Hannity is remotely trustworthy, so if he backs up what Trump said he said, he only adds to the suspicion about what Trump actually said.

Quote
Im pretty happy with this moderator.  It's a hard thing for a moderator to walk the line between being neutral and fact checking.  When he had a verified quote and Trump tried to deny it, I liked that he insisted on the quote without fighting about it.
Agree.

Quote
I am concerned that the moderator may have been showing a bias, but at the same time, his bias seemed to me to be against outright lies and against filibustering questions, so I liked it.
I don't think it's bias when he presses for answers to his questions when the respondent wanders off topic.


« Last Edit: September 26, 2016, 11:39:52 PM by AI Wessex »

JoshuaD

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The First Debate - 2016
« Reply #3 on: September 26, 2016, 11:43:12 PM »
Quote
Hmmm, how do you explain that someone is too dangerous to get on an airplane but not too dangerous to own as many weapons as they like?

I would remove the no-fly list or fundamentally change the way it functions.

Quote
I call bull*censored* on this one.  If you really believe that it was digitally altered, explain the "chain of control" and the fact that nobody can be found who actually was involved who will admit it.  Wouldn't it be worth $mmmmm to them to confess to FOX that they know it was a fake.  You're leaning too far.

Link, at whitehouse.gov.

Screenshot of the altered document.

It is, undeniably, more than a direct scan. I scan dozens of legal documents a week at my job. They don't ever, ever look like this. They look like photographs.

At an absolute minimum, someone edited this document for readability. I still would like to see the unedited original, and I absolutely think we should have seen it during the 2007 primary season, long before Obama had the nomination, was elected, or actually served for years as President.

Quote
I don't see why both can't be true.  It was W's negotiated withdrawal, and it was something that Obama fully supported.

They can both be true, but if Obama (and Clinton) supported it, then she can't slough off responsibility for the negative consequences on W.




AI Wessex

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The First Debate - 2016
« Reply #4 on: September 26, 2016, 11:51:49 PM »
Quote
At an absolute minimum, someone edited this document for readability. I still would like to see the unedited original, and I absolutely think we should have seen it during the 2007 primary season, long before Obama had the nomination, was elected, or actually served for years as President.
Why on God's earth would *this* candidate have to release his birth certificate, when no other candidate for President ever has had to do that before?  But let's pretend that there might be a question as to whether he was born in the US or in Kenya.  His mother was a US citizen, which makes him a US citizen by birth.  Further, the question of what a "natural born citizen" is has never even been tested (except fleetingly for Romney pere and McCain), so what's the difference?  And who planted the birth announcement in the Hawaii papers if it wasn't true, and why on earth would they have bothered?  You're deconstructing a circumstantial conclusion to validate facts for which there is no credible evidence.  But you can't stop there, because if that was a lie, so are so many other "details" of his life.  He really is a Muslim and perhaps even the antichrist.  There's no way to prove otherwise.

My advice is to give it up, he was born in Hawaii.  FWIW, I've also manually created PDFs in my career and understand how and why a PDF would have what appear to be layering effects like his birth certificate.  If you believe that the birth certificate is a fake, then you also have even more evidence that Bush was behind 9/11.  Have fun denying that one.

JoshuaD

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The First Debate - 2016
« Reply #5 on: September 26, 2016, 11:59:59 PM »
If you believe that the birth certificate is a fake, then you also have even more evidence that Bush was behind 9/11.  Have fun denying that one.

As I said above: "I believe he was born here. But it pissed me off that he wouldn't show us his credentials until after he was elected, and that the document that was finally released is unambiguously digitally altered."

Quote
Why on God's earth would *this* candidate have to release his birth certificate, when no other candidate for President ever has had to do that before? 

Because someone asked. I don't have to show my ID at the liquor store unless the clerk asks. Then I have to show that yes, I am indeed legally able to buy alcohol.

I wouldn't have asked. Perhaps the person asking was racially motivated. I don't know. I do know that it's one of the requirements and so it should be unequivocally fulfilled. Laws matter.

Quote
I've also manually created PDFs in my career and understand how and why a PDF would have what appear to be layering effects like his birth certificate

I also understand how this could happen. The fact remains: it is a digitally altered document. It's not simply a photograph or scan of the document itself.

I scan a birth certificate or death certificate at least once a week at my job. I get flat scans every time. If they're having trouble doing that in Hawaii, fly me out. I'll get it done with the click of a button.

As to the rest of your post, just for absolute clarity:

Quote
I believe he was born here. But it pissed me off that he wouldn't show us his credentials until after he was elected, and that the document that was finally released is unambiguously digitally altered.


AI Wessex

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The First Debate - 2016
« Reply #6 on: September 27, 2016, 12:13:01 AM »
Quote
Because someone asked. I don't have to show my ID at the liquor store unless the clerk asks. Then I have to show that yes, I am indeed legally able to buy alcohol.
I asked for Romney's birth certificate, but since it wasn't thought to have enough inertia to derail his candidacy, nobody bothered to push it for me.

Quote
I wouldn't have asked. Perhaps the person asking was racially motivated. I don't know. I do know that it's one of the requirements and so it should be unequivocally fulfilled. Laws matter.
Ever since 2008 rumors matter more than facts or laws.  I'm having a t-shirt made that says "Vote!" on the back, and on the front

Facts Matter! (in blue)
Says Who? (in red)

Quote
I scan a birth certificate or death certificate at least once a week at my job. I get flat scans every time. If they're having trouble doing that in Hawaii, fly me out. I'll get it done with the click of a button.
I'm curious about this statement.  Do you examine the resulting scan in photoshop or another tool?  Do you use OCR when you scan the document?  A simple scan would produce a single layer file, but depending on how it's done you can end up with something with many layers and compositional artifacts.

JoshuaD

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The First Debate - 2016
« Reply #7 on: September 27, 2016, 12:24:18 AM »
I asked for Romney's birth certificate, but since it wasn't thought to have enough inertia to derail his candidacy, nobody bothered to push it for me.

He did release it. link. And good that he did.  (Also: it's a single layer scan without OCR).

Quote from: AI Wessex
Quote
I scan a birth certificate or death certificate at least once a week at my job. I get flat scans every time. If they're having trouble doing that in Hawaii, fly me out. I'll get it done with the click of a button.
I'm curious about this statement.  Do you examine the resulting scan in photoshop or another tool?  Do you use OCR when you scan the document?  A simple scan would produce a single layer file, but depending on how it's done you can end up with something with many layers and compositional artifacts.

What's interesting to you?  There is literally nothing difficult about creating a flat, photograph quality scan of a normal sized document. Every staples and best buy in the US sells scanners that will do just that for you.

No, I don't use photoshop. No, I don't use OCR. I get a photo-quality scan in one layer, and that's what I'd like to see. A copy of his credentials for the job, unaltered, un-enhanced. In its pure bitmap glory. (I would settle for jpeg or png.)

My position is really simple and clear, AI. I know you understand it. What do you find disagreeable?
« Last Edit: September 27, 2016, 12:26:34 AM by JoshuaD »

Gaoics79

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The First Debate - 2016
« Reply #8 on: September 27, 2016, 05:28:01 AM »
I watched the first 30 minutes before switching back to the Jays v. Yankees game, as the Jays were rallying for a bottom of the ninth comeback that sadly wasn't to be. These days, 30 minutes is about all I can take of a modern political debate regardless.

I thought Trump did some damage whenever he referenced Clinton's history of doing nothing about economic issues she presently claimed to care strongly about. His discussion of trade deals was pretty effective and if I were him, I would have even referenced Bernie as an additional jab, but he was too egocentric to do that. I thought he was at his best every time he hammered her on her inconsistencies and political history (what have you done in the past 30 years) and worst whenever he was fawning over rich people and how his country club buddies were going to save the country.

At first his interruptions seemed to be knocking HIllary off guard and forcing her into a defensive stance, which seemed to be working. It seemed like his heckling was working. But I quickly tired of the routine and Trump just came across like a bully.

The tax returns versus missing e-mails issue was kind of a wash for me. Both came across equally badly.

By the time they got into the subject of race, things turned south for Trump. I switched back to the ballgame right around the time he had finished rambling on about a country club he had built, supposedly as some kind of evidence of his equal hiring practices? It was a bizarre non sequiter.

Hillary was more consistent, I'll give her that. Trump was more entertaining. Both performed more or less as expected. I only give credit to Trump for not living down to the absolutely lowest expectations I had of him. But that's not exactly saying alot for him. At least he didn't say "believe me" more than a couple times. Every time he does that it sends shills down my spine.

Gaoics79

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The First Debate - 2016
« Reply #9 on: September 27, 2016, 05:34:00 AM »
Quote
But let's pretend that there might be a question as to whether he was born in the US or in Kenya.  His mother was a US citizen, which makes him a US citizen by birth. 

I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and presume you're just ignorant and not just deliberately spouting nonsense. Sorry, it's just that after all these years, it kind of bugs me when someone says something like this. I don't want to derail the thread on this subject, but please just go and read up on the subject and educate yourself.

AI Wessex

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The First Debate - 2016
« Reply #10 on: September 27, 2016, 05:53:41 AM »
Quote
But let's pretend that there might be a question as to whether he was born in the US or in Kenya.  His mother was a US citizen, which makes him a US citizen by birth. 

I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and presume you're just ignorant and not just deliberately spouting nonsense. Sorry, it's just that after all these years, it kind of bugs me when someone says something like this. I don't want to derail the thread on this subject, but please just go and read up on the subject and educate yourself.
Explain the problem with that statement?  I've read up on the issue (including here).  If he were born in another country to a mother who was a US citizen, the only way he would not be a US citizen would be if his mother failed to file the necessary paperwork at a US embassy.  This raises the irresolvable issue that since he was born in Hawaii (see newspaper announcement and his birth certificate, not to mention repeated statements by Hawaiian officials), the fact that his mother didn't apply for a CRBA is not evidence that he isn't a US citizen, but a useless claim.

'Splain me if I'm wrong.

Joshua:
Quote
No, I don't use photoshop. No, I don't use OCR. I get a photo-quality scan in one layer, and that's what I'd like to see. A copy of his credentials for the job, unaltered, un-enhanced. In its pure bitmap glory. (I would settle for jpeg or png.)

My position is really simple and clear, AI. I know you understand it. What do you find disagreeable?
That no amount of clarifications has ever proved sufficient to overcome committed skepticism about him, so it's just another argument that Obama can't win, like the "fact" that he is a Muslim, an Indonesian citizen and his Harvard transcript will prove that he was not born in the US.  The heated debate about those things is ebbing as Obama nears the end of his term (but see Corey Lewandowski raising the Harvard transcript/foreign birth issue recently on CNN), but he will never be able to disprove them.
« Last Edit: September 27, 2016, 06:05:02 AM by AI Wessex »

DJQuag

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The First Debate - 2016
« Reply #11 on: September 27, 2016, 06:23:29 AM »
"Hmmm, how do you explain that someone is too dangerous to get on an airplane but not too dangerous to own as many weapons as they like?"

The issue is the burden of proof to stop someone from flying is basically nothing, and far too many people are stopped from flying who shouldn't be.

Gaoics79

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The First Debate - 2016
« Reply #12 on: September 27, 2016, 07:15:48 AM »
Quote
But let's pretend that there might be a question as to whether he was born in the US or in Kenya.  His mother was a US citizen, which makes him a US citizen by birth. 

I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and presume you're just ignorant and not just deliberately spouting nonsense. Sorry, it's just that after all these years, it kind of bugs me when someone says something like this. I don't want to derail the thread on this subject, but please just go and read up on the subject and educate yourself.
Explain the problem with that statement?  I've read up on the issue (including here).  If he were born in another country to a mother who was a US citizen, the only way he would not be a US citizen would be if his mother failed to file the necessary paperwork at a US embassy.  This raises the irresolvable issue that since he was born in Hawaii (see newspaper announcement and his birth certificate, not to mention repeated statements by Hawaiian officials), the fact that his mother didn't apply for a CRBA is not evidence that he isn't a US citizen, but a useless claim.

'Splain me if I'm wrong.

Al it has to do with his mother's age at the time. I don't feel like derailing the thread but you can just Google it. If it wasn't legally relevent where he was born no one (including Hillary's people) would have bothered inquiring.

D.W.

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The First Debate - 2016
« Reply #13 on: September 27, 2016, 09:37:12 AM »
I was shocked when Trump's response to HRC's "you can't be trusted with the nuke codes" jab was left to stand. 

He said something to the effect of, "Nuclear proliferation / nuclear conflict is the biggest threat to us, NOT global warming as Hillary would have you believe."

Were I in her shoes, I would have turned and said, "Donald, if you were to win, I'd agree with you on that 100%." 

But nope... missed opportunity.  Not our "zinger" candidate I guess.  :P

TheDrake

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The First Debate - 2016
« Reply #14 on: September 27, 2016, 10:04:20 AM »
It's 2016. How did this turn into a birther thread?

Best point by Donald - "We cannot be the policemen of the world. We cannot protect countries all over the world."

Craziest statement by Donald - "I think my strongest asset, maybe by far, is my temperament."

Hillary's most genuine moment - an actual honest laugh at one point where she seems astonished at what Donald had just run off on

Hillary's biggest nonsense - "If you're too dangerous to fly, you are too dangerous to buy a gun."

Donald's most revealing statement - "I think that I've developed very, very good relationships over the last little while with the African-American community."

Donald's most powerful gibe - "We learned that Bernie Sanders was taken advantage of by your people."

Both did the standard presidential thing of talking about things that can't be handled at the federal level, like talking about the need for police training and process changes which is municipal.


D.W.

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The First Debate - 2016
« Reply #15 on: September 27, 2016, 10:12:28 AM »
Quote
Hillary's biggest nonsense - "If you're too dangerous to fly, you are too dangerous to buy a gun.
Kinda a nitpicking, but I agree with the statement.  I just think that the "no fly list" is a cluster F and needs a total reevaluation.

TheDrake

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The First Debate - 2016
« Reply #16 on: September 27, 2016, 10:19:27 AM »
Quote
Hillary's biggest nonsense - "If you're too dangerous to fly, you are too dangerous to buy a gun.
Kinda a nitpicking, but I agree with the statement.  I just think that the "no fly list" is a cluster F and needs a total reevaluation.

Several problems with this. As you note, the no-fly list is full of errors and omissions, plus there is no set method to challenge if you are on the list. Additionally, flying on an airplane is not a right like owning a gun is. Plus, there's no clear evidence that anyone on the list has actually committed gun violence. Someone who is an actual terrorist likely can purchase or acquire a gun illegally, making a background check moot.

She should have stuck to improving the background check input from the states and improving the existing list, at best. 

Seriati

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The First Debate - 2016
« Reply #17 on: September 27, 2016, 10:19:55 AM »
My overall initial thought is that Trump started stronger, but Hillary was more consistent through the night.  I think the idea that Trump can't be President because he's too easy to provoke took a hit.  For a golf analogy, Trump went for the birdie and got the bogey, while Hillary laid up and got par.  Don't usually use golf analogies, but that's pretty much the tightest summation of how I'd describe their overall philosophy and the last night's results.

On moderation, I was both impressed and disappointed.  I was impressed that Lester restrained himself as much as he did, he played it old school media style and revealed his bias only to those who pay attention.  That said, I think we need to end the era of single moderators if we're going to have to suffer through deliberate spin in the questions and false fact checking.  I counted at least 3 questions that could have been written by Clinton staffers (Trump taxes, Birther Question, not looking Presidential) on a night when he didn't ask any reciprocal questions to Clinton, and in fact avoided her most controversial topics.  That's the bias by selection of coverage that the media classically perpetrated so they could deny there was a bias.  But he also took it a step further, with overstated claims - for example, phrasing the question by calling it a lie that Obama wasn't born in the US.  It's a fact one way or the other, and virtually no one has knowledge of its truth, we just have evidence on the topic.  And he made incredibly misleading "fact claims" on stop and frisk, where stop and frisk is Constitutional, even if there are implementations that are not (whether NY's was, is itself up for debate with De Blaisio controversial decision to drop the appeal that the city likely would have won for his own political reasons).  Most viewers are not in a position where they are going to understand the nuance on these things so Holt's phrasing rises, in my view, to the level of abuse of trust.

Here were my thoughts during the debate. I posted them on facebook, but since we don't have a debate thread yet, I figured this was a good way to start one.

Stop and frisk is such a BS policy. Authoritarian BS.

Well it depends on the implementation.  I'm baffled though, what you think should be done in an area where criminal shootings are happening several times a day, if not to have the police get more involved?  I think people get one idea in their head, ie that white cops are frisking the only black kids in a shopping mall.  When the reality is cops familiar with a neighborhood where they work everyday being proactive in areas that have well above average crime.

Do we want safer neighborhoods?  If so, the police have to be proactive.  Granted, we do not accept them being racist in pursuit of those goals.

Quote
Ugh, the no-fly list is also authorization bull*censored*. Hillary's advocation for expanding the consequences of that list makes me sad.

All candidates are disappointments on this unconstitutional policy.  I chalk it up to knowing that taking the correct position turns into a sound bite, "blank wants to give terrorists guns."

Quote
Not sure if I like the moderator getting in there as a fact checker.

If they would limit themselves to facts, rather than opinions as facts it might be a different story.  But jumping in to back a misleading statistic, which is what they want to do, is almost criminal.

Quote
<characterizing trump>Guys, if you want the truth about what I said (despite the video that shows otherwise) go ask Sean Hannity, the biggest Republican shill aside from perhaps Limbaugh.

Not sure why this is such a big issue.  I mean people have let Hillary back off on supporting the Iraq War after she voted to authorize it, but somehow Trump was a supporter because of an offhand comment to Howard Stern that seems to be inconsistent with everything else he said on the war, including real time?   Where's the sense in that?  I find this one to be a ridiculous issue, particularly after the explanation has been given, only propagated because the Clinton campaign wants it repeated.

I really thought some of Trump's best moments, were when he was pointing out that this Administration has doubled our debt and yet our infrastructure is still degrading.  Pointing out that so much of government policies on spending are wasteful, though I would have taken it further and stated that they are designed to buy voters and pay back "friends." 

At this point, I think the release of taxes is a joke.  Even if they were perfect, with no flaws showing what he wants, they would still do nothing but hurt him after release.  I wouldn't release them if I were him.  Why won't you release them?  Because there's no way the media won't spend weeks taking them completely out of context to hurt his campaign, they do it with every line out of his mouth, on what earth would they not do it with hundreds of pages of tax disclosures?
« Last Edit: September 27, 2016, 10:22:57 AM by Seriati »

D.W.

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The First Debate - 2016
« Reply #18 on: September 27, 2016, 10:27:32 AM »
Quote
Not sure why this is such a big issue.  I mean people have let Hillary back off on supporting the Iraq War after she voted to authorize it, but somehow Trump was a supporter because of an offhand comment to Howard Stern that seems to be inconsistent with everything else he said on the war, including real time?
This is mostly Trumps fault rather than the media refusing to let it go.

His go to move is "I never said that."
Not, "I didn't mean that", or "I've changed my mind" or "what I meant to say was..." 

He phrases his objection as a flat denial it ever happened.  Tries to insist he DID say something else.  It's a nasty habit that he doesn't seem to understand the media will NOT let slide.

When Hillary's position changes, she BS's her way through it.  We may or may not hate it or defend her or parse out how it's "technically true", but it's a different animal than a "Never said that." response.

D.W.

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The First Debate - 2016
« Reply #19 on: September 27, 2016, 10:34:58 AM »
Quote
At this point, I think the release of taxes is a joke.  Even if they were perfect, with no flaws showing what he wants, they would still do nothing but hurt him after release.  I wouldn't release them if I were him.  Why won't you release them?  Because there's no way the media won't spend weeks taking them completely out of context to hurt his campaign, they do it with every line out of his mouth, on what earth would they not do it with hundreds of pages of tax disclosures?
This one is tricky.  I agree with you on the outcome, however I got to say that those voting for him have to be faced with the reality of KNOWING, not suspecting that here is a rich person, who isn't paying what many would consider "their fair share".  If they see this, and still believe in trickle down economics... fine.  Let them vote with their eyes open.

He expects us to respect him for gaming the system for his own benefit.  What a portion of the population is using as credentials for a villain he seems to see as a positive attribute.  I'd prefer it was known data over accusations personally.

I'd like to know more about the measures in place for stopping a sitting president from essentially selling us out for personal gain.  In that respect the more open he is about his business, the less room he has (I would hope) to exploit the power of the office.  Not sure if a release of his taxes honestly helps that point or not.

Redskullvw

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The First Debate - 2016
« Reply #20 on: September 27, 2016, 10:50:20 AM »
Absolute train wreck for both of them. Trump revealed he wasn't a politician. Hillary revealed she can skirt the truth and no one notices.

D.W.

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The First Debate - 2016
« Reply #21 on: September 27, 2016, 10:58:41 AM »
Revealed?  Just now?  It's like her super power! 
I assumed that was WHY so many people are voting against her as opposed to voting for the other nominee.   8)

Seriati

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The First Debate - 2016
« Reply #22 on: September 27, 2016, 11:03:27 AM »
He phrases his objection as a flat denial it ever happened.  Tries to insist he DID say something else.  It's a nasty habit that he doesn't seem to understand the media will NOT let slide.

Except that's exactly my point.  What did he "flatly deny"?  Lester Holt deliberately gamed the question, "Mr. Trump, a lot of these are judgment questions. You had supported the war in Iraq before the invasion. What makes your..."

Lester didn't say that Trump said it, he said flat out that Trump supported the war.  That doesn't appear consistent with Trump's position real time, it's only roughly consistent with the Howard Stern line - which has been explained.  There's no way that Lester didn't know that what he said was false and overstated, and I agree he could have crafted a true question on the topic, but he chose not to do so.

Quote
When Hillary's position changes, she BS's her way through it.  We may or may not hate it or defend her or parse out how it's "technically true", but it's a different animal than a "Never said that." response.

How many times now has Hillary said some version of the FBI proved I didn't lie to the American people.  So many of her quotes on her server are literally, never said that, not mention the TPP gold standard thing, which is far more stark and clear than Trump on Iraq War.

Quote
He expects us to respect him for gaming the system for his own benefit.  What a portion of the population is using as credentials for a villain he seems to see as a positive attribute.  I'd prefer it was known data over accusations personally.

And the benefit of what, over 20,000 employees, and an even larger amount of counterparties?   I think it's tradition designed to make it harder for anyone but a politician to run for office.  I mean, if you really want to go there, why not make all tax returns public?  If you can't agree with that, why not every politician or public servant?

Quote
I'd like to know more about the measures in place for stopping a sitting president from essentially selling us out for personal gain.  In that respect the more open he is about his business, the less room he has (I would hope) to exploit the power of the office.  Not sure if a release of his taxes honestly helps that point or not.

Indeed, what mechanism is there to prevent a President (and say their spouse) from going from broke to having more than $100 million without every producing a product, or for having billions raised by a foundation under their control from foreign parties while acting as our chief diplomat?  There don't seem to be much in the way of such mechanisms.

scifibum

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The First Debate - 2016
« Reply #23 on: September 27, 2016, 11:04:10 AM »
JoshuaD, I think there were good explanations offered for the digital artifacts in the birth certificate, but it doesn't matter. The document is an official assertion from the state of Hawaii that Obama was born there. It can be assembled from magazine clippings and still be just as valid as any other birth certificate, if the state issued it. And the state did issue the document in question.

NobleHunter

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The First Debate - 2016
« Reply #24 on: September 27, 2016, 11:10:54 AM »
What about Trump's denial that he'd claimed global warming was a Chinese hoax? That seemed to get a lot of buzz during the debate but I haven't heard much about it during the follow up.

D.W.

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The First Debate - 2016
« Reply #25 on: September 27, 2016, 11:16:07 AM »
Seriati, you make an excellent point on how questions are framed.  It’s hard not to show some bias.  On the other hand, it’s hard to look at  (or listen to) that quote from Trump and think that at that moment in time he had a tacit approval for the war.  It was far from an enthusiastic call for support however. 

“the FBI proved I didn't lie to the American people.”  Fair point

“not mention the TPP gold standard thing, which is far more stark and clear than Trump on Iraq War.”
This one is timing.  Before and after final version is my understanding.  Also thrown into the mix is trying to support the sitting president as opposed to campaigning on how YOU would govern.  That said, I’ll concede it’s ridiculous to dismiss that she saw the way the wind was blowing when campaigning against Sanders (not Trump…)

All tax returns public?  OK, sold.  :)

“Indeed, what mechanism is there to prevent a President (and say their spouse) from going from broke to having more than $100 million without every producing a product, or for having billions raised by a foundation under their control from foreign parties while acting as our chief diplomat?  There don't seem to be much in the way of such mechanisms.”  Exactly why she was not my candidate… 

The only thing that lets me stomach a vote for her is the opposition.  I expect her (and her family) to profit from power.  I just think that will be a byproduct rather than the primary objective.  With Trump his attitude suggests as long as HE is doing well we should all be happy for him because (somehow) we’ll benefit as well.

D.W.

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The First Debate - 2016
« Reply #26 on: September 27, 2016, 11:17:48 AM »
What about Trump's denial that he'd claimed global warming was a Chinese hoax? That seemed to get a lot of buzz during the debate but I haven't heard much about it during the follow up.
I'm personally willing to let the "Chinese" part of the hoax slide as a joke.  His sense of humor is honestly malformed enough that this COULD be legit.  But he seems pretty vehement about the 'hoax' part.

Like any written/typed medium you can't detect humor easily.  It's not like a candidate could use excessive emoji's and seem "Presidential"  ;)
« Last Edit: September 27, 2016, 11:23:23 AM by D.W. »

NobleHunter

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The First Debate - 2016
« Reply #27 on: September 27, 2016, 11:26:08 AM »
Celebrity is a product and an ex-President is usually one of the most respectable celebrities around. Her speaking fees weren't out-of-line for her level of prominence.

DW, in the actual tweet, the Chinese part isn't framed as a joke. Not unless the context of the tweet stream makes it clear he's spouting nonsense to mock the tin foil hat brigade.

Fenring

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The First Debate - 2016
« Reply #28 on: September 27, 2016, 11:29:27 AM »
Celebrity is a product and an ex-President is usually one of the most respectable celebrities around. Her "speaking fees" weren't out-of-line for her level of prominence.

FTFY

NobleHunter

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The First Debate - 2016
« Reply #29 on: September 27, 2016, 11:32:14 AM »
If I'd meant "speaking fees," I'd have written "speaking fees." So you didn't fix it for me.

Redskullvw

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The First Debate - 2016
« Reply #30 on: September 27, 2016, 11:34:26 AM »
Honestly, I saw a meme posted on Facebook. Shows a picture of Nixon and of Clinton. States Nixon guilty of erasing 19 minutes. Clinton guilty of deleting 30,000 emails. Liberal friends are all up in arms over it stating fallacies such as the emails being personal, other people do it, its not important, and Nixon was the most evil person ever.

If you don't understand scrubbing a sever, contradictions, and the outright lies stated by her staff about JUST the server issue- you won't ever understand anything that encompasses the variety and scope of Clinton's other deeds. You cannot explain fact to people who do not understand the basic concepts of something as deliberate and indictable as even the DNC leaks.

Trump up till now, has been in debates where the audience understands Syd Bloomenthal's confirmed and documented plan to derail President Obama in 2008. Its a wink and nod to say Clinton's campaign had zero to do with it or even was the documented source for the attempt to smear Obama. Its ;like DWS wasn't part of the current Clinton campaign, despite literally clustering Sanders during the primary. Its documented. Its factual. In four years no one except political junkies will remember the facts or the scandal.

So trump has been in debates where everyone in the audience remembers what he stated at the time and did. Republicans at debates are the MOST likely to remember Syd, the Clinton 2008 Campaign, and how Trump probably forced the Obama Campaign to attempt to resolve the issue by releasing the Hawaiian Live Birth Record.

The up till tonight audiences he faced on the debate stages remembered what he did. So when Trump brought up Syd's confirmed and documented actions regarding Obama and the origin of the Birther movement with Clinton- he was expecting the audience to probably react to just how badly he had blasted her with a factual rebuttal.

Instead, low information voters in both the audience and watching on T.V. saw it as if Trump made a ludacrious accusation and dodged the question by the moderator about the Obama birth record. And Clinton smiled because literally only a bare 23% of the electorate understood just how much of a setup the question was in the first place and how Clinton lied and denied any involvement whatsoever.

There is literally no way Trump will win. His mindset is of a competitive businessman. He sees no one as permanent friend nor foe. He is used to factual numbers and timelines. He's used to deadlines with consequences. It would never occur to him that narrative and presentation wins out over documented and known facts. He's not an actual politician - so this trap was sprung on him again and again last night.

Clinton looked knowledgable and competent as she basically lied multiple times. She knows she isn't going to get any of the 23% Republican electorate. Doesn't matter if she outright lies to the rest of the people because she already has their vote or they are too ignorant to understand she's lying in the first place.

All anyone remembers at this point is Trump kept looking at her in what can only be expressed as pure flabbergast. It was as if he couldn't comprehend how she was utterly lying about specific things- but he was the only one who was noticing this in the debate hall. Even when she lied and stated his tax releases from during an application for a gambling license showed he paid no tax in two years. trump said that just shows I'm smart. The factual reality was he paid some massive net taxes in 3 out of five documented years. It shows in two of those documented years he had no net tax liability. It doesn't mean he paid no taxes.

In the business world you don't so overtly and overwhelmingly claim such a falsehood as Clinton did. Trump has no exposure to this type of tactic, because in the real world if someone made such a representation outside of political competition, they would get sued so fast that the sound barrier would echo. Clinton was masterful in the debate because Trump never faced any opponent so far on a debate stage who disagreed with and obfuscated the nature and facts upon which questions were asked. And since he has no experience in dealing with literal lies being stated as utter truths in a political venue- Clinton was able to totally destroy his credibility.

Don't get me wrong- Trump did do much better than anyone was assuming he would. He did indeed debate well enough to not alienate his core, and he did nothing to displace undecideds into Clinton's camp. AllClinton had to do was survive. Which she absolutely did.

At this point all she need do is make herself media scarce, not meltdown in the last two debates- and she will be President of The United States of America.

 

Fenring

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The First Debate - 2016
« Reply #31 on: September 27, 2016, 11:41:49 AM »
If I'd meant "speaking fees," I'd have written "speaking fees." So you didn't fix it for me.

Just to be clear, 'FTFY' doesn't actually imply you made an error; it's a trope involving a post making a new point using most of the sentence used by someone else, and where the 'fixed' part is usually the thesis of the new post. My point isn't that you made a typo; it's that I doubt she ever spoke at Goldman Sachs.

NobleHunter

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The First Debate - 2016
« Reply #32 on: September 27, 2016, 11:44:30 AM »
Quote
He's used to deadlines with consequences. It would never occur to him that narrative and presentation wins out over documented and known facts.
If that's true, he's a *censored* businessman. If you're good, there are no consequences that can't be negotiated away, where managing expectations and understandings is the first step in re-writing a contract to your advantage. Business is the only arena where reality is more mutable than politics.

I know the usage, Fenring, I just don't like it.

Redskullvw

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The First Debate - 2016
« Reply #33 on: September 27, 2016, 11:56:16 AM »
NH

I agree that its all about change in contracted outcomes. What I'm trying to get at is the contract is based upon agreed facts.

For example- a widget contract is going to state that x number will be black or have an add-on. If you go back to enforce or renegotiate terms- everyone at the table agrees as to the initial facts in the contract. No one is going to go back and argue that the widgets were initiated by a contract or that they had ever been or not been produced.

What Im getting at is, Trump has a business understanding over facts. Not a political understanding in terms of governmental political actors. For example Clinton understands the impact of her "What difference does it make?!?!" quote. Shear and utter political theater and manipulation on her part even when she was saying it. Trump doesn't get how she magically could nullify even the existence of an issue just by rephrasing the narrative.

No one is concerned anymore about what her roll was in Benghazi. Just because of that statement. It placed the issue into subjective political realms.

Trump cannot seem to do that. Thats why he looked so blindsided. Clinton totally latched onto this weakness and played his inability to perceive newspeak as it was happening in front of him.


Wayward Son

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The First Debate - 2016
« Reply #34 on: September 27, 2016, 12:01:53 PM »
Quote
My point isn't that you made a typo; it's that I doubt she ever spoke at Goldman Sachs.

It always amuses me when people criticize Hillary for her speaking fees while supporting Trump.  (Not that I'm implying you're a Trump supporter, Fenring.  Just saying. :))

It's like people are saying that they don't want the President to controlled by those rich, Wall Street fat-cats.  Instead, they want to by-pass the middle-man and elect a rich fat-cat directly into the office. 

It will be so much better that way.  ::)

Quote
Shows a picture of Nixon and of Clinton. States Nixon guilty of erasing 19 minutes. Clinton guilty of deleting 30,000 emails.

And neglects to mention the 22 million missing e-mails under the Bush Administration.  But that doesn't support the point, so it doesn't count, does it?  ;)

D.W.

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The First Debate - 2016
« Reply #35 on: September 27, 2016, 12:03:53 PM »
It's not like business is exempt from this type of gray areas or obfuscation. 

"We're going to ignore this contract and/or not pay you.  You want that money you can take us to court or accept this lesser amount and walk away.  Oh, and are you sure you want to be seen as litigious?  May make more sense for you to just march onto the next job and keep it quiet..."

There's above board contract negotiation, then there is 'doing business'. 

Redskullvw

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The First Debate - 2016
« Reply #36 on: September 27, 2016, 12:04:37 PM »
Wayward

I wasn't trying to make a point regarding Bush or even previous acts of Bush. I was pointing out something entirely different so as to preface what my actual point was.


Fenring

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The First Debate - 2016
« Reply #37 on: September 27, 2016, 12:05:40 PM »
I know the usage, Fenring, I just don't like it.

Ok. Since Hillary has jack-all qualifications to school Goldman Sachs on economics, I guess it'll be up to you to decide whether legal bribes are a good thing or not.

ETA - and to answer WS, no, this doesn't mean I'm siding with Trump in any sense on this issue. If I was 'siding with' any position it might be to abstain from voting or to vote libertarian or green. However I'll also note that Trump is NOT one of those 'fat cats'. He has trivial net power compared to the real players, and controls basically nothing. He's just a rich guy having fun.
« Last Edit: September 27, 2016, 12:09:38 PM by Fenring »

Redskullvw

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The First Debate - 2016
« Reply #38 on: September 27, 2016, 12:09:07 PM »
There's above board contract negotiation, then there is 'doing business'.

Correct- but my point is whether its business with the Mob or Industrialists- everyone knows what the preceding facts are- that isn't the negotiation or even a possible denial. The negotiation is changing the final outcome to a new end result that differs from the previous outcome.


NobleHunter

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The First Debate - 2016
« Reply #39 on: September 27, 2016, 12:16:28 PM »
Quote
Ok. Since Hillary has jack-all qualifications to school Goldman Sachs on economics,
So she didn't give a talk on economics? She's got a dozen different transferable skills she could blather on about to management. People seem to believe there'd be value in her showing up and reading the phone book.

ETA: I think refusing to pay is denying the fact that there was an obligation to pay. Not to mention Trump seems way more comfortable with bald face lies than Clinton.
« Last Edit: September 27, 2016, 12:21:12 PM by NobleHunter »

D.W.

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The First Debate - 2016
« Reply #40 on: September 27, 2016, 12:19:32 PM »
I'm sure she did give a talk on economics... but there would be a value in her sitting quietly just sipping coffee.  :P

Wayward Son

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The First Debate - 2016
« Reply #41 on: September 27, 2016, 12:32:15 PM »
Quote
I wasn't trying to make a point regarding Bush or even previous acts of Bush. I was pointing out something entirely different so as to preface what my actual point was.

Fair enough.  I was just pointing out how that, when it comes to indictable actions, there is a standard that Hillary is held to (by the Republicans), and a standard that everyone else is held to.

Of course, Republicans turn that statement around.  I guess it's a matter of perspective. :)

But you have to admit, while Hillary gets compared to Nixon for not providing 30 thousand e-mails, no one has compared Bush to Nixon for not providing 22 million e-mails. ;)

D.W.

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The First Debate - 2016
« Reply #42 on: September 27, 2016, 12:37:29 PM »
I think this is a case of "Not what you did, but how you did it."  Politicians are secretive.  We'll mark that in the "Duh" column.  However it's VERY hard for anyone to see a private email server as anything but an attempt to control information for the express intent of improving secrecy.  Trying to blow smoke and insist that isn't the case is what gets people worked up.  We're sheep yes, but we're not THAT slow.

velcro

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The First Debate - 2016
« Reply #43 on: September 27, 2016, 12:56:05 PM »
RedSkull wrote about "Syd [sic] Bloomenthal's confirmed and documented plan to derail President Obama in 2008".

The actual confirmation and documentation consists entirely of a statement by James Asher.  Most recently, Asher said
Quote
"Blumenthal visited the Washington Bureau of McClatchy, where he and I met in my office. During that conversation and in subsequent communications, we discussed a number of matters related to Obama. He encouraged McClatchy to do stories related to Obama and his connections to Kenya."
According to Politifact,
Quote
Asher said he remembered Blumenthal mentioning Obama’s birthplace but acknowledged that he had nothing in writing.

So everyone can judge for themselves how "confirmed and documented" that claim actually was.

velcro

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The First Debate - 2016
« Reply #44 on: September 27, 2016, 01:08:40 PM »
-Trump did not explain why he still questioned Obama's birthplace 5 years after he "solved" the problem by forcing Obama to release his birth certificate.

-Trump did not explain why he will not release his tax returns even though (almost?) every candidate has done so for 40 years, and the IRS has said that returns can be released even under audit. No lawyer will ever want you to release any documents, because for them there is only downside.  But candidates who want to be trusted do it despite lawyers objections.  Given the horrors that Clinton thought were in them, he is clearly better off releasing them to prove her wrong.  Unless she is right.  Oh, and Trump has refused to give evidence that he is actually under audit.  People under audit get a letter, and he has been asked for it.  He has not provided it.

-Trump did not explain the "looking Presidential" comment, but dodged the question.

-Trump did not explain his "yeah, I guess so" agreement to the Iraq War. He distorted it and denied it.  I would respect an admission of an initial mistake, but not a denial with an actual recording to dispute it.

-Hillary admitted the emails were a mistake.

-I don't think she flat out dodged questions like Trump.  If you thought she did, please provide examples.

My primary issue with Trump is that when he lies, he never apologizes.  He never backs down.  He never admits a mistake, even when the unquestionable, universally agreed upon, unambiguous facts are staring him in the face.

If someone can not admit to a mistake, they can be very, very dangerous when they get power.

AI Wessex

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The First Debate - 2016
« Reply #45 on: September 27, 2016, 08:38:56 PM »
Jason:
Quote
Al it has to do with his mother's age at the time. I don't feel like derailing the thread but you can just Google it. If it wasn't legally relevent where he was born no one (including Hillary's people) would have bothered inquiring.
Hillary's "people" didn't inquire.  They had a rogue volunteer who raised the issue and was fired as soon as they found out.  They also notified Obama's campaign about it and apologized for his actions.

DJQuag:
Quote
"Hmmm, how do you explain that someone is too dangerous to get on an airplane but not too dangerous to own as many weapons as they like?"

The issue is the burden of proof to stop someone from flying is basically nothing, and far too many people are stopped from flying who shouldn't be.
You go to war with the army you have.  In other words, because that law is defective doesn't mean that it's meaningless.  If they use it to claim that people on the list are too dangerous to allow on a plane because of suspicion they might engage in terrorism, I don't see how you can argue that because they can't prove it they should ignore the fact that they have it.  I can just see people screaming if one of those people had carried out a mass shooting and government said, yeah well put him on the no-fly list because we thought he might be dangerous, but we didn't think he was dangerous enough that he shouldn't be able to buy guns if he wanted to.  The accusations against the government on the Boston and San Bernadino were based on that kind of loophole.

TheDrake:
Quote
Someone who is an actual terrorist likely can purchase or acquire a gun illegally, making a background check moot.
Which is the standard NRA/Republican argument against all background checks.  The fact the the majority of murders are committed with illegally obtained weapons doesn't somehow create a groundswell of support to create tighter laws to prevent that, given that the laws in effect are obviously not working.

DW:
Quote
He expects us to respect him for gaming the system for his own benefit.  What a portion of the population is using as credentials for a villain he seems to see as a positive attribute.  I'd prefer it was known data over accusations personally.

I'd like to know more about the measures in place for stopping a sitting president from essentially selling us out for personal gain.  In that respect the more open he is about his business, the less room he has (I would hope) to exploit the power of the office.  Not sure if a release of his taxes honestly helps that point or not.
Excellent points.

Scifibum:
Quote
JoshuaD, I think there were good explanations offered for the digital artifacts in the birth certificate, but it doesn't matter. The document is an official assertion from the state of Hawaii that Obama was born there. It can be assembled from magazine clippings and still be just as valid as any other birth certificate, if the state issued it. And the state did issue the document in question.
Another good point.  For the released document to be a fake, there would have to be a massive conspiracy in Hawaii and Washington to cover it up.  Unfortunately, some people's faith that Obama was born in Kenya is so strong that no conspiracy is too wild for them to conjure up to explain it, even though they have no evidence to support their fixed belief.

NobleHunter:
Quote
DW, in the actual tweet, the Chinese part isn't framed as a joke. Not unless the context of the tweet stream makes it clear he's spouting nonsense to mock the tin foil hat brigade.
For some reason he seems to consistently have to tell us afterward that what he said was a joke, because he was totally straightfaced when he said it.  That's like his claim that when he said how great stop-and-frisk is, he was only talking about Chicago.  Except that he never said he was only talking about Chicago when he said how great it is.

Fenring:
Quote
Ok. Since Hillary has jack-all qualifications to school Goldman Sachs on economics, I guess it'll be up to you to decide whether legal bribes are a good thing or not.
Are you suggesting that the only reason the wall street firms would invite an ex-Secretary of State and ex-first lady and ex-Senator to speak to them would be to have her teach them about economics?

Quote
However I'll also note that Trump is NOT one of those 'fat cats'. He has trivial net power compared to the real players, and controls basically nothing. He's just a rich guy having fun.
:D  He's a YUGE fat-cat with a runaway narcissistic and sociopathic personality, and lording his exorbitant level of privilege is his idea of "having fun".

AI Wessex

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The First Debate - 2016
« Reply #46 on: September 27, 2016, 09:17:11 PM »
Jason:
Quote
Al it has to do with his mother's age at the time. I don't feel like derailing the thread but you can just Google it. If it wasn't legally relevent where he was born no one (including Hillary's people) would have bothered inquiring.
Hillary's "people" didn't inquire.  They had a rogue volunteer who raised the issue and was fired as soon as they found out.  They also notified Obama's campaign about it and apologized for his actions.  I still don't understand your issue about Obama's mother age.  She was born and lived continuously in the US until Obama's birth.  If she gave birth to Obama in Kenya, explain how that violated the rules regarding her residency.  If you don't want to talk about it here, start a thread or email me.

DJQuag

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The First Debate - 2016
« Reply #47 on: September 27, 2016, 10:02:32 PM »
The no fly list (and removing second amendment rights from people on it) is about the only thing that I can think of that brings the right and the left together in lockstep.

Kind in mind that this sort of thing has never been done before. At least when you don't allow felons or the mentally ill to buy weapons, there is a process in place to defend yourself against the charges. There is no such thing for the no fly list, in the name of "national security." For all we know, there are people on there for absolutely no good reason at all.

You don't get to dick around with people's rights just because you happen to think that *this* amendment is silly and you're annoyed that it can't be taken away through constitutional means.

The no fly list is an absolute joke, and not allowing people on it to buy guns turns it from being semi unconstitutional to blatantly unconstitutional. 

The right doesn't care about this because it will disproportionately affect Muslims and brown people, and the left won't care because they'll be excited to "do SOMETHING" about guns, even if they have to set an ugly and dangerous precedent to do so. They'll both be excited about winning a victory in the eyes of the piss stained trouser wearing popular mob.

Bipartisanship at it's best.

velcro

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The First Debate - 2016
« Reply #48 on: September 27, 2016, 10:07:06 PM »
AI,

Here's the relevant law:
Quote
Birth Abroad to One Citizen and One Alien Parent in Wedlock
A child born abroad to one U.S. citizen parent and one alien parent acquires U.S. citizenship at birth under Section 301(g) of the INA provided the U.S. citizen parent was physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for the time period required by the law applicable at the time of the child's birth. (For birth on or after November 14, 1986, a period of five years physical presence, two after the age of fourteen, is required. For birth between December 24, 1952 and November 13, 1986, a period of ten years, five after the age of fourteen, is required for physical presence in the United States or one of its outlying possessions to transmit U.S. citizenship to the child.) The U.S. citizen parent must be the genetic or the gestational parent and the legal parent of the child under local law at the time and place of the child’s birth to transmit U.S. citizenship.

I'll let you parse it out, but the birfers claim that Obama's mom was out of the country long enough to not meet the requirement.  The fact that there is absolutely zero evidence that she left the country does not factor into their calculations.

DW, as far as the digitized birth certificate:
Factcheck.org says
Quote
FactCheck.org staffers have now seen, touched, examined and photographed the original birth certificate. We conclude that it meets all of the requirements from the State Department for proving U.S. citizenship. Claims that the document lacks a raised seal or a signature are false. We have posted high-resolution photographs of the document as “supporting documents” to this article. Our conclusion: Obama was born in the U.S.A. just as he has always said.
FYI "FactCheck.org is a project of the Annenberg Public Policy Center of the University of Pennsylvania. "  UPenn is Trump's alma mater.

DJQuag

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The First Debate - 2016
« Reply #49 on: September 27, 2016, 10:10:34 PM »
For all his faults, Trump is a real estate guy who endorses crappy products with his name.

He's not part of the military industrial complex. He's not in the financial sector. He doesn't run a capital investment firm.

I wish the pay for play system wasn't in place in Washington, but it is, and on the list of types of people who pay, Trump's is way down in terms of concern about how much damage he could/did do.