Debate last night - change anything for anyone?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For me? Yes. It reaffirmed just how complicit the media is with the Democratic party.

It's a very dangerous thing for the media not to be a neutral party.

My vote will go with the Republicans because that can't stand.

The first step for you to heal is to shut off your main sources of "information." No Fox, no right wing radio, no clicking on that forward from your neighbor. You have to come back to Earth.

I don't watch Fox. I do listen to those I know and have come to respect, who work at Breitbart, the Heritage Foundation, and the Media Research Center. I have lost respect for others from the WaPo and NYT because they have fallen into this pit.

I watch what's going on in Europe very carefully. They are our test case for what will happen when refugees are placed here with only the 'vetting' we have. It can't be good if multiple refugees placed here have had active TB. How can one miss that?

What's going on in Europe is slightly different to here with respect to refugees. Most of the "refugees" in Europe are economic refugees. They have admitted it as well. The refugees Canada and the US have accepted are true refugees fleeing a war torn country. Even Pence and Trump admit that there is a humanitarian crisis in Syria, and Pence, at least, wants to do something about even though he tried to stop those refugees from settling in Indiana, but a judge over ruled him.. Trump's view is that it's a lost cause and we should just fold. That's how he operates his business as well. Cut your losses, and run, and let someone else pick up the pieces. Look at his latest flop - the Taj Mahal. You know who gets shafted on that deal... the taxpayers.

We can't take that risk unless the vetting here improves dramatically.

Unions and the state of Atlantic City itself brought down the Taj.

Has Trump defined how he is going to improve the vetting, or what "extreme vetting" even means? We have had a few terrorist attacks and several arrests of people who are providing aid to ISIS. NONE of them are refugees from Syrian, but several are white American citizens. Your fear is not based on facts. This is the problem I have with a total ban on refugees Our bigger problem in this regard are American born, some from white families, who sympathize with these extremists groups. I'm betting that the Feds are closely watching the refugees. It's a lot harder to keep tabs on ordinary American citizens than it is on refugees.

The Taj Mahal tanked also because of Trump's mismanagement and Christie's corruption. The taxpayers foot the bill. As usual.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For me? Yes. It reaffirmed just how complicit the media is with the Democratic party.

It's a very dangerous thing for the media not to be a neutral party.

My vote will go with the Republicans because that can't stand.

The first step for you to heal is to shut off your main sources of "information." No Fox, no right wing radio, no clicking on that forward from your neighbor. You have to come back to Earth.

I don't watch Fox. I do listen to those I know and have come to respect, who work at Breitbart, the Heritage Foundation, and the Media Research Center. I have lost respect for others from the WaPo and NYT because they have fallen into this pit.

I watch what's going on in Europe very carefully. They are our test case for what will happen when refugees are placed here with only the 'vetting' we have. It can't be good if multiple refugees placed here have had active TB. How can one miss that?

You are worried about TB? Really? Yes, poor refugees fleeing war have a very high rate of TB. So do people coming from high prevalence countries of all stripes. That's why we treat them. With drugs. And they get better. My God. If you would shut your door to a child fleeing violence because she has a curable illness that has an infinitesimally small chance of spreading here in the US...I don't think we have much common ground.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I'm curious to hear if last night's debate changed anything for anyone? Did it just confirm what you were already thinking, or was there anything said that made you think about making a change? Or helped if you were undecided?

Nope. Didn't watch the first, nor last night, and don't like either and sincerely believe both would be terrible as the POTUS.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm curious to hear if last night's debate changed anything for anyone? Did it just confirm what you were already thinking, or was there anything said that made you think about making a change? Or helped if you were undecided?

Nope. Didn't watch the first, nor last night, and don't like either and sincerely believe both would be terrible as the POTUS.

But hey you non-answer like Trump does!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For me? Yes. It reaffirmed just how complicit the media is with the Democratic party.

It's a very dangerous thing for the media not to be a neutral party.

My vote will go with the Republicans because that can't stand.

The first step for you to heal is to shut off your main sources of "information." No Fox, no right wing radio, no clicking on that forward from your neighbor. You have to come back to Earth.

I don't watch Fox. I do listen to those I know and have come to respect, who work at Breitbart, the Heritage Foundation, and the Media Research Center. I have lost respect for others from the WaPo and NYT because they have fallen into this pit.

I watch what's going on in Europe very carefully. They are our test case for what will happen when refugees are placed here with only the 'vetting' we have. It can't be good if multiple refugees placed here have had active TB. How can one miss that?

You are worried about TB? Really? Yes, poor refugees fleeing war have a very high rate of TB. So do people coming from high prevalence countries of all stripes. That's why we treat them. With drugs. And they get better. My God. If you would shut your door to a child fleeing violence because she has a curable illness that has an infinitesimally small chance of spreading here in the US...I don't think we have much common ground.

I am concerned about the efficiency of a government that can't even IDENTIFY ACTIVE TB in people they are allowing in the door.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For me? Yes. It reaffirmed just how complicit the media is with the Democratic party.

It's a very dangerous thing for the media not to be a neutral party.

My vote will go with the Republicans because that can't stand.

The first step for you to heal is to shut off your main sources of "information." No Fox, no right wing radio, no clicking on that forward from your neighbor. You have to come back to Earth.

I don't watch Fox. I do listen to those I know and have come to respect, who work at Breitbart, the Heritage Foundation, and the Media Research Center. I have lost respect for others from the WaPo and NYT because they have fallen into this pit.

I watch what's going on in Europe very carefully. They are our test case for what will happen when refugees are placed here with only the 'vetting' we have. It can't be good if multiple refugees placed here have had active TB. How can one miss that?

What's going on in Europe is slightly different to here with respect to refugees. Most of the "refugees" in Europe are economic refugees. They have admitted it as well. The refugees Canada and the US have accepted are true refugees fleeing a war torn country. Even Pence and Trump admit that there is a humanitarian crisis in Syria, and Pence, at least, wants to do something about even though he tried to stop those refugees from settling in Indiana, but a judge over ruled him.. Trump's view is that it's a lost cause and we should just fold. That's how he operates his business as well. Cut your losses, and run, and let someone else pick up the pieces. Look at his latest flop - the Taj Mahal. You know who gets shafted on that deal... the taxpayers.

We can't take that risk unless the vetting here improves dramatically.

Unions and the state of Atlantic City itself brought down the Taj.

Has Trump defined how he is going to improve the vetting, or what "extreme vetting" even means? We have had a few terrorist attacks and several arrests of people who are providing aid to ISIS. NONE of them are refugees from Syrian, but several are white American citizens. Your fear is not based on facts. This is the problem I have with a total ban on refugees Our bigger problem in this regard are American born, some from white families, who sympathize with these extremists groups. I'm betting that the Feds are closely watching the refugees. It's a lot harder to keep tabs on ordinary American citizens than it is on refugees.

The Taj Mahal tanked also because of Trump's mismanagement and Christie's corruption. The taxpayers foot the bill. As usual.

It's not just about Syria. That's a small part of the problem. The 'white American citizen' thing is neither here nor there - we've always had them. What we have that's NEW is a rash of radical Islamists killing and bombing, here as well as in Europe. We have radical Islam blooming in mosques here and online, and the backlash has been against conservatives saying "well, that's not good, now is it..."

The Taj Mahal tanked due to union demands. They went on strike. They lost. And lost their jobs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm a longtime Hillary supporter, and last night didn't change that.

But I did start crying a few times thinking that this is where we are. A boorish, loutish, uninformed, dangerous, pussy grabbing bully has almost as much support for President as a woman whose scandals of email use, foreign policy, and handling affair rumors would be mere blips if they were on the resume of a man.

It's such a double standard, and it's really depressing.

+1

+2

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For me? Yes. It reaffirmed just how complicit the media is with the Democratic party.

It's a very dangerous thing for the media not to be a neutral party.

My vote will go with the Republicans because that can't stand.

The first step for you to heal is to shut off your main sources of "information." No Fox, no right wing radio, no clicking on that forward from your neighbor. You have to come back to Earth.

I don't watch Fox. I do listen to those I know and have come to respect, who work at Breitbart, the Heritage Foundation, and the Media Research Center. I have lost respect for others from the WaPo and NYT because they have fallen into this pit.

I watch what's going on in Europe very carefully. They are our test case for what will happen when refugees are placed here with only the 'vetting' we have. It can't be good if multiple refugees placed here have had active TB. How can one miss that?

What's going on in Europe is slightly different to here with respect to refugees. Most of the "refugees" in Europe are economic refugees. They have admitted it as well. The refugees Canada and the US have accepted are true refugees fleeing a war torn country. Even Pence and Trump admit that there is a humanitarian crisis in Syria, and Pence, at least, wants to do something about even though he tried to stop those refugees from settling in Indiana, but a judge over ruled him.. Trump's view is that it's a lost cause and we should just fold. That's how he operates his business as well. Cut your losses, and run, and let someone else pick up the pieces. Look at his latest flop - the Taj Mahal. You know who gets shafted on that deal... the taxpayers.

We can't take that risk unless the vetting here improves dramatically.

Unions and the state of Atlantic City itself brought down the Taj.

Has Trump defined how he is going to improve the vetting, or what "extreme vetting" even means? We have had a few terrorist attacks and several arrests of people who are providing aid to ISIS. NONE of them are refugees from Syrian, but several are white American citizens. Your fear is not based on facts. This is the problem I have with a total ban on refugees Our bigger problem in this regard are American born, some from white families, who sympathize with these extremists groups. I'm betting that the Feds are closely watching the refugees. It's a lot harder to keep tabs on ordinary American citizens than it is on refugees.

The Taj Mahal tanked also because of Trump's mismanagement and Christie's corruption. The taxpayers foot the bill. As usual.

It's not just about Syria. That's a small part of the problem. The 'white American citizen' thing is neither here nor there - we've always had them. What we have that's NEW is a rash of radical Islamists killing and bombing, here as well as in Europe. We have radical Islam blooming in mosques here and online, and the backlash has been against conservatives saying "well, that's not good, now is it..."

The Taj Mahal tanked due to union demands. They went on strike. They lost. And lost their jobs.

You can't compare Europe's "refugees" to the ones in the US/Canada. They have millions. We have thousands. They seriously can't control who is coming in as they are coming in droves. We can control who is coming in.

And the rash of bombings here were committed by American citizens, regardless of whether they are white or middle eastern descent. Would you like to be judged and punished for something someone of your race or religion committed? I sure as hell don't, but that's what you are talking about. That's how FDR got the American public to buy into interning thousands of Japanese during WWII. And do you know how many Japanese Americans were convicted of espionage? Zero. There were a few that were caught and convicted.. they were all white Americans. We have not learned from history, and his tactics and rhetoric are just pushing moderate Muslims who live here away. He wants these folks to report on extremists in their midst. Why would they do that if they don't trust him ? Police leaders will tell you that the most effective way to fight crime is to form a partnership with the community. It's critical. Trump is doing the opposite.

So if the union broke Taj Mahal, then that tells me that Trump is not that great of a negotiator.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am voting Trump because Pence is on the ticket. Mind made up, voting for Trump now matter what skeletons they trot out on stage. Hillary has just as many or more skeletons but being having a criminal mind, she is better at hiding them.

Oh, come off it. You were in the (toilet) tank for Trump anyway. Nothing was "changed" for you.

Just as you are with HRC. Deal with it your immoral idiot

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm a longtime Hillary supporter, and last night didn't change that.

But I did start crying a few times thinking that this is where we are. A boorish, loutish, uninformed, dangerous, pussy grabbing bully has almost as much support for President as a woman whose scandals of email use, foreign policy, and handling affair rumors would be mere blips if they were on the resume of a man.

It's such a double standard, and it's really depressing.

+1

+2

Woman card again! She doesn't get it both ways, she's either tough enough to handle this or she should get out. God I'm sick of Gloria Steinheim feminists!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm a longtime Hillary supporter, and last night didn't change that.

But I did start crying a few times thinking that this is where we are. A boorish, loutish, uninformed, dangerous, pussy grabbing bully has almost as much support for President as a woman whose scandals of email use, foreign policy, and handling affair rumors would be mere blips if they were on the resume of a man.

It's such a double standard, and it's really depressing.

+1

+2

Woman card again! She doesn't get it both ways, she's either tough enough to handle this or she should get out. God I'm sick of Gloria Steinheim feminists!

IDK, I think Trump's whiney card trumps the women card complaint.

[Anonymous]

It sure as hell didn't change my opinion on Trump voters. Complete and utter idiots. Shame on you, idiots.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The way Trump moved around the stage and stalked Clinton, I would have told him to back the flock up. That said, it affirmed my thought that Clinton is just more knowledgeable about policy.

Did you watch the debate? I'm guessing you only looked at the pictures of it. Hillary was the one moving on stage... not in a bad way. She would just walk over to the audience. This made her position be in front of Trump. Trump just kind of stayed where he was when she did this. Of course, the photographs make it look different from what it was.

+1. During the debate I was wondering, why is Clinton going to Trump's side all the time? If anything, she was the one stalking him.

You two are delusional. She moved to speak to the person asking the question. Trump paced the ENTIRE time. He didn't stop or sit down once. Nor did he ever speak to the actual audience.

Apparently HRC supporters cannot read. You just repeated exactly what I said...

My words:
"Hillary was the one moving on stage... not in a bad way. She would just walk over to the audience."

Your words:
"She moved to speak to the person asking the question."

You are so ready to argue, you do not even realize when someone says the same thing as you. It's hilarious.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm a longtime Hillary supporter, and last night didn't change that.

But I did start crying a few times thinking that this is where we are. A boorish, loutish, uninformed, dangerous, pussy grabbing bully has almost as much support for President as a woman whose scandals of email use, foreign policy, and handling affair rumors would be mere blips if they were on the resume of a man.

It's such a double standard, and it's really depressing.

+1

YES.

I can't understand this. Sexism at it's most virulent, from Democrats and Republicans alike.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm a longtime Hillary supporter, and last night didn't change that.

But I did start crying a few times thinking that this is where we are. A boorish, loutish, uninformed, dangerous, pussy grabbing bully has almost as much support for President as a woman whose scandals of email use, foreign policy, and handling affair rumors would be mere blips if they were on the resume of a man.

It's such a double standard, and it's really depressing.

+1

+2

Woman card again! She doesn't get it both ways, she's either tough enough to handle this or she should get out. God I'm sick of Gloria Steinheim feminists!

I think she has clearly proven she's tough enough to handle it. But if you can't see that a huge amount of the criticism of her stems from pure, misogynistic "Salem witch trial" type BS, than you are not very bright. And the PP who said he wouldn't vote for her because she's 'the smartest girl in class that everyone hates" just proves it. a significant number of people are threatened by a smart, accomplished woman--why in the world wouldn't you want the smartest woman working for you?

BTW - I cannot believe no one has mentioned the fact that he said he'd put her in jail. Has it really come to this? Latin American style authoritarianism where we're going to jail the opposition? this is scary stuff people- he's sounding more like Hitler every day.