• Welcome to the Internet Infidels Discussion Board.

3rd presidential debate HQ *OFFICIAL*

 
 
 
Hey, Clinton was just saying hi to Sam Malone from Cheers. How'd he get in there? Has he become somebody over the last few decades and I didn't notice?
 
There were several points during the debate when I saw Clinton taking notes as Trump was talking. I was waiting for her to pounce on his absurd diatribes. She didn't. She responded with talking points rather than shooting down his bullshit.

For example, on immigration he said that she supported open borders. Then he claimed she voted for "the wall." Then he went back to the open borders claim, and followed up by pointing out that the Obama administration has deported a whole lot of people. So the Obama administration has rounded up a record number of illegals, Clinton supported "the wall," and yet she's in favor of open borders and letting terrorists into the country.


He was incoherent. She fell back on "comprehensive immigration reform" scripted points.
 
Clinton won outright, by a long shot. Public will view it like the First Debate, where Clinton was viewed as the general winner. She will consolidate more woman support.

Thought Chris Wallace did pretty well, except for noting the $225k for the speech he raised.

The biggest losing moment "A Nasty Woman". The remaining of his nuclear triad of mistakes, not trusting the election result, and Intelligence on Russia.

- - - Updated - - -

Ford said:
There were several points during the debate when I saw Clinton taking notes as Trump was talking. I was waiting for her to pounce on his absurd diatribes. She didn't. She responded with talking points rather than shooting down his bullshit.

For example, on immigration he said that she supported open borders. Then he claimed she voted for "the wall." Then he went back to the open borders claim, and followed up by pointing out that the Obama administration has deported a whole lot of people. So the Obama administration has rounded up a record number of illegals, Clinton supported "the wall," and yet she's in favor of open borders and letting terrorists into the country.

He was incoherent. She fell back on "comprehensive immigration reform" scripted points.
Click to expand...
You'll notice that when confronted Trump would just shift goalposts. Clinton did what was necessary, stay on message. Undecideds won't remember the bullshit, just Trump's base.
 
Jimmy Higgins said:
Clinton won outright, by a long shot. Public will view it like the First Debate, where Clinton was viewed as the general winner. She will consolidate more woman support.

Thought Chris Wallace did pretty well, except for noting the $225k for the speech he raised.

The biggest losing moment "A Nasty Woman". The remaining of his nuclear triad of mistakes, not trusting the election result, and Intelligence on Russia.

- - - Updated - - -

Ford said:
There were several points during the debate when I saw Clinton taking notes as Trump was talking. I was waiting for her to pounce on his absurd diatribes. She didn't. She responded with talking points rather than shooting down his bullshit.

For example, on immigration he said that she supported open borders. Then he claimed she voted for "the wall." Then he went back to the open borders claim, and followed up by pointing out that the Obama administration has deported a whole lot of people. So the Obama administration has rounded up a record number of illegals, Clinton supported "the wall," and yet she's in favor of open borders and letting terrorists into the country.

He was incoherent. She fell back on "comprehensive immigration reform" scripted points.
Click to expand...
You'll notice that when confronted Trump would just shift goalposts. Clinton did what was necessary, stay on message. Undecideds won't remember the bullshit, just Trump's base.
Click to expand...

You are absolutely correct. Trump tended to get mired in the negative issues he's associated with and kept repeating "I didn't say that" or "She's lying". In nearly every case he DID say that. Clinton was asked some appropriately tough questions by Wallace, gave a short response and pivoted quickly. Nearly nothing got followed up on just like the first debate.

Even though Chris Wallace said he wouldn't be a fact checker, he actually challenged Trump several times.
 
maginog said:
Talking about Mosul, I can't believe he's using the same argument as last time about warning them in advance of the attack and blaming her for pulling the troops out originally. I didn't know she was in charge of the military. He still has no clue about military tactics. BTW, I'm watching the CNN version with the Nevada undecided voters reactions. I have no hope for Nevada.
Click to expand...

Because he didn't prepare or learn.

He's like Sarah Palin. He makes an ass of himself, then instead of buckling down and studying hard to get more informed, and come across better next time, he just pretends he doesn't need to and makes fun of anyone who DOES get prepared. He's like a dumb schoolkid making fun of the 'nerds' who study so hard, then he fails the test completely. Then, like Trump will undoubtedly do, he will pretend that the test really didn't matter.
 
Thomas II said:
Hillary won, hands down...Trump was all over, discombobulated. I think he knows he lost...
Click to expand...

I didn't see it that way. It was slightly more on issues. I agree with Clinton on retaining the woman's right to choose even if it disagrees my view that abortion should mainly only be carried out for medical reasons.

The wars in the Middle East have been a mess and though Russia has a poor human rights record, I think it and the US should cooperate with each other.
Issues such as email-gate, grope-gate, pussy-gate,Lewinski-gate are weapons of mass distraction.

While Obama-care is costly the principles of affordable care should be constantly developed without simply increasing the debt. One way is to stop instigating wars in the Middle East.

Military troops into Iraq though advisers are present there would be financially expensive and risky.

The US debt doubled under Obama and has increased under all post war leaders. It may be okay now but if this continues at the estimated US$3.600.00 per second eventually there will be a problem.

Legal immigration yes, illegal immigration no. At least the US should deport criminals rather than waste tax payer money by putting them in the system
 
Jimmy Higgins said:
Clinton won outright, by a long shot. Public will view it like the First Debate, where Clinton was viewed as the general winner. She will consolidate more woman support.

Thought Chris Wallace did pretty well, except for noting the $225k for the speech he raised.

The biggest losing moment "A Nasty Woman". The remaining of his nuclear triad of mistakes, not trusting the election result, and Intelligence on Russia.

- - - Updated - - -

Ford said:
There were several points during the debate when I saw Clinton taking notes as Trump was talking. I was waiting for her to pounce on his absurd diatribes. She didn't. She responded with talking points rather than shooting down his bullshit.

For example, on immigration he said that she supported open borders. Then he claimed she voted for "the wall." Then he went back to the open borders claim, and followed up by pointing out that the Obama administration has deported a whole lot of people. So the Obama administration has rounded up a record number of illegals, Clinton supported "the wall," and yet she's in favor of open borders and letting terrorists into the country.

He was incoherent. She fell back on "comprehensive immigration reform" scripted points.
Click to expand...
You'll notice that when confronted Trump would just shift goalposts. Clinton did what was necessary, stay on message. Undecideds won't remember the bullshit, just Trump's base.
Click to expand...


I guess what I'm saying is that while she did what was prudent (staying on message), I was hoping she'd do more. It was like I was watching Mortal Kombat and thinking "finish him! Flawless victory!" and she just landed a few solid punches and went back to her corner.
 
Clinton should have read verbatim the exchange Trump had with Howard Stern about going into the dressing rooms of the pageants he ran to see the naked women. Followed by a reasonable quip...

The Trump campaign did not offer a response to either story, but in a 2005 appearance on Howard Stern's show, Trump bragged about doing exactly what the women describe. "I'll go backstage before a show, and everyone's getting dressed and ready and everything else," he said.
His position as the pageant's owner entitled him to that kind of access, Trump explained, seemingly aware that what he was doing made the women uncomfortable. "You know, no men are anywhere. And I'm allowed to go in because I'm the owner of the pageant. And therefore I'm inspecting it... Is everyone OK? You know, they're standing there with no clothes. And you see these incredible-looking women. And so I sort of get away with things like that," he said.
Click to expand...

were they allowed notes?
 
Hillary came out in full support of the idea of anchor babies. She doesn't think any illegals who procreate in the US should be deportable. :(
 
Jimmy Higgins said:
The biggest losing moment "A Nasty Woman".
Click to expand...
Well she is a nasty woman. So why is that a "losing moment"? Because he acknowledged that she is a female?
Had Hillary called Trump a "nasty man" nobody would have bet an eye, so why is "nasty woman" unacceptable?

This is just more double standards and female privilege.

For example, on immigration he said that she supported open borders.
Click to expand...
Well she did say (in a speech she was paid $225,000 for) that she dreams of open borders. But of course, in typical Clintonian fashion, what she meant (or now claims she meant) depends on what the definition of is is. :rolleyes:
 
Derec said:
Hillary came out in full support of the idea of anchor babies. She doesn't think any illegals who procreate in the US should be deportable. :(
Click to expand...

I'm sure given the high birth rates in the USA, some do play the system. However, the US and most Western countries don't like to deport the parents and leave the children even with relatives.

More border protection is necessary to reduce the amount of those entering illegally. However people who want to live in the US should go through the citizenship process without this type of queue jumping or waiting for an amnesty once they are in the USA.
 
whichphilosophy said:
I'm sure given the high birth rates in the USA, some do play the system. However, the US and most Western countries don't like to deport the parents and leave the children even with relatives.
Click to expand...
And yet I have been told that "anchor babies", the idea that children of illegals help those illegals stay in the US was right wing propaganda. I guess it was not.
And of course the children could go back to Mexico (or Guatemala etc.) with the deported parents. Why not?

That said, I disagree with the whole idea of birthright citizenship for babies of illegals. I think that interpretation of the 14th amendment is faulty and should be changed.

However people who want to live in the US should go through the citizenship process without this type of queue jumping or waiting for an amnesty once they are in the USA.
Click to expand...
So "dry feet" policy for everybody? Once they enter the US they should automatically be amnestied?
We need to make being illegal more difficult, not easier. Giving them automatic and immediate amnesty is only going to encourage more illegals to come.
What is needed is to discourage them. No driver's licenses. No in-state tuition (in fact illegals should not be allowed to attend state schools at all!) No loans for illegals like California is doing. No ability to work by expanding the e-Verify system. Stiff penalties for knowingly hiring illegals. Etc. That would discourage illegals to come and also cause some of the illegals already here to self-deport.
 
Derec said:
Well she is a nasty woman. So why is that a "losing moment"? Because he acknowledged that she is a female?
Had Hillary called Trump a "nasty man" nobody would have bet an eye, so why is "nasty woman" unacceptable?
Click to expand...

I disagree with you about no one batting an eye if Clinton called Trump a "nasty man". I think every sexist, misogynist, and Clinton hater in America would jump all over her for appearing weak when faced with a strong, confident man. She would have had her ass handed to her after the Red Staters and Blue Dogs got tired of chewing it. I think they'd all be saying if she can't maintain a professional demeanor when confronted by a man like Trump, and instead resorts to whiny bitchy name calling about how "nasty" he is, how in the heck can she lead this Great Nation of Ours and Make America Great Again (Not That It Ever Wasn't Great)?

If there's a double standard at play here, Trump is the beneficiary. He'll get off easy because no one expects him to be statesman-like.
 
Derec said:
And yet I have been told that "anchor babies", the idea that children of illegals help those illegals stay in the US was right wing propaganda. I guess it was not.
And of course the children could go back to Mexico (or Guatemala etc.) with the deported parents. Why not?

That said, I disagree with the whole idea of birthright citizenship for babies of illegals. I think that interpretation of the 14th amendment is faulty and should be changed.

However people who want to live in the US should go through the citizenship process without this type of queue jumping or waiting for an amnesty once they are in the USA.
Click to expand...
So "dry feet" policy for everybody? Once they enter the US they should automatically be amnestied?
We need to make being illegal more difficult, not easier. Giving them automatic and immediate amnesty is only going to encourage more illegals to come.
What is needed is to discourage them. No driver's licenses. No in-state tuition (in fact illegals should not be allowed to attend state schools at all!) No loans for illegals like California is doing. No ability to work by expanding the e-Verify system. Stiff penalties for knowingly hiring illegals. Etc. That would discourage illegals to come and also cause some of the illegals already here to self-deport.
Click to expand...

The solution is to make illegal entry harder. The Wall is not a bad idea but this should also be followed through by closing down the tunnels that will most likely sprout through underneath the wall structures.
Whether this is right wing propaganda or not, having a baby while in the USA is a good way to play the system. Many countries don't give a right of citizenship if you are born there, such as most Arab countries and China. Both have very strict policies on migrants as a whole.

I do believe that amnesties or rumors of will discourage some illegals. I'm sure however that with no driver's licences allowed a few will be buying renewed ones where the original owner is deceased. I think many would survive without these. The Jews for instance often faced isolation but it didn't stop them from getting an education (Jewish Schools) or banking and doing what others do. Keeping control of the borders is the best solution.
 
Well, it doesn't appear that either side really did anything but repeat old talking points we have all heard.
So core constituencies will not really have anything to change their minds. So its now down to end games. Clinton has lots of money and will hit trump hard with ads. And the fact checkers will hit Trump hard as usual.
 
I'm sorry but anyone that thought the juvenile, incoherent Trump won that debate is delusional. I don't think he has a chance of winning the election, but it's frightening to think that such a large part of the country sees this man as a capable leader when the evidence strongly supports that he is a failure many times over. Besides that, he's a racist, a sexist and a person that knows very little about how government works.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom