The Debates Thread - Part 1

[Marvolo]

Trump really **** the bed in that last debate. Showed his complete ignorance about abortion, C-sections and birth in general. Showed his contempt for women and his contempt for peaceful Democratic transitions of power and contempt for our country's democracy.

 

[DJ_KiDDvIcIOUs]

Trump really **** the bed in that last debate. Showed his complete ignorance about abortion, C-sections and birth in general. Showed his contempt for women and his contempt for peaceful Democratic transitions of power and contempt for our country's democracy.

I like how he referenced abortions that happen the day before birth because that's a huge problem real women deal with all the time.

I just carried this child to term for 9 whole months but changed my mind.

 

[Marvolo]

Not only that, but its entirely legal to cut a fetus out of a woman in the 9th month. Its called a C-section, Donny. It doesnt kill the baby.

 

[Lighthouse]

Not only that, but its entirely legal to cut a fetus out of a woman in the 9th month. Its called a C-section, Donny. It doesn't kill the baby.

I heard pro-life people who were infuriated with him because of his ignorance on this issue.

 

[Dark Raven]

I heard pro-life people who were infuriated with him because of his ignorance on this issue.

What did they say? Link?

 

[samsnee]

Trump really **** the bed in that last debate. Showed his complete ignorance about abortion, C-sections and birth in general. Showed his contempt for women and his contempt for peaceful Democratic transitions of power and contempt for our country's democracy.

It just shows he didn't bother preparing at all. I bet if he even spent a quarter of the time Hillary spent on each debate prepping, it would be a much closer race.

 

[Iceman]

Yeah see this kind of stuff could so easily be cleaned up if he consulted with and listened to his advisors on what he was planning to say.

 

[Warhammer]

 

[SuperDan007]

I'll just say one thing for the moment on that final debate, yes there is plenty to be said about both Trump and Clinton, and I think Trump actually raised some valid issues during the debate, but that was all blown away with his answer to Chris Wallace re: accepting the election result. That was an unforced error. Particularly when you consider a clarification he gave the day after, in that he will accept the election result, but reserves his right to challenge it in court if he feels it's necessary. He says that, and the media has nothing to go crazy about, at least not on that issue.

 

[Dark Raven]

I'll just say one thing for the moment on that final debate, yes there is plenty to be said about both Trump and Clinton, and I think Trump actually raised some valid issues during the debate, but that was all blown away with his answer to Chris Wallace re: accepting the election result. That was an unforced error. Particularly when you consider a clarification he gave the day after, in that he will accept the election result, but reserves his right to challenge it in court if he feels it's necessary. He says that, and the media has nothing to go crazy about, at least not on that issue.

I don't know if he gave that clarification at all. I know he did say "I will accept the result of the election... if I win." Some of the other Republicans tried to do damage control by saying he'll accept the result but reserves the right to challenge it, but I don't recall Trump ever saying that himself. If he did, then people would be reporting that he softened his stance and clarified himself, but they're not. They're reporting that he'd accept if he won, which is what he did clarify.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

I'll just say one thing for the moment on that final debate, yes there is plenty to be said about both Trump and Clinton, and I think Trump actually raised some valid issues during the debate, but that was all blown away with his answer to Chris Wallace re: accepting the election result. That was an unforced error. Particularly when you consider a clarification he gave the day after, in that he will accept the election result, but reserves his right to challenge it in court if he feels it's necessary. He says that, and the media has nothing to go crazy about, at least not on that issue.

Did you miss all the crazy stuff he said as well? Like avoiding our intelligence saying Russia is doing the hacks, him not knowing what C-section is, not being able to explain how his financial plan would work, or proving he has no idea what is happening in Syria?

 

[SuperDan007]

I don't know if he gave that clarification at all. I know he did say "I will accept the result of the election... if I win." Some of the other Republicans tried to do damage control by saying he'll accept the result but reserves the right to challenge it, but I don't recall Trump ever saying that himself. If he did, then people would be reporting that he softened his stance and clarified himself, but they're not. They're reporting that he'd accept if he won.

Perhaps I may have misheard. I was in the car at the time. I know his statements put him at odds with his own daughter, and boss (campaign manager). I know Republican after Republican tried to do damage control and were using that line, so I very well may have gotten it muddled up.

 

[SuperDan007]

Did you miss all the crazy stuff he said as well? Like avoiding our intelligence saying Russia is doing the hacks, him not knowing what C-section is, not being able to explain how his financial plan would work, or proving he has no idea what is happening in Syria?

Oh don't worry. I didn't miss those. I'm no Trump fan. I am hoping for a thumping Hillary victory on November 8. Trump, in my opinion would be an absolutely disaster, and not solely for the repulsive stuff he says about women.

However, when I say he raised some valid points, I was referring to his statement that broadcasting to the world that forces were going into attack Mosul is basically saying to the enemy "Just give you fair warning to give you time to get ready, we're preparing to attack you." Do you think General Eisenhower was broadcasting to the Germans that they were preparing to attack Normandy on 6 June 1944? No, they were using diversionary tactics to catch them off guard.

That's what I mean when I say he raised some valid points. I don't want him to win (I supported Bernie in the primaries) and I despise most of his positions, however, I, unlike Fox News despite their slogan, believe in being Fair and Balanced and giving credit where it's due even if you are tied to a particular political party, or ideology.

 

[Orba]

However, when I say he raised some valid points, I was referring to his statement that broadcasting to the world that forces were going into attack Mosul is basically saying to the enemy "Just give you fair warning to give you time to get ready, we're preparing to attack you." Do you think General Eisenhower was broadcasting to the Germans that they were preparing to attack Normandy on 6 June 1944? No, they were using diversionary tactics to catch them off guard.

When warning ahead of time about the attack on Mosul its not so much about warning ISIL, its about warning the civilian population. By giving them warning they have a chance to try to get out of the city. Its not a situation like Normandy, its nothing like it, a WW2 analogy would be if we had warned the cities of Hamburg and Dresden before the bombing raids.

 

[chaseter]

If the civilians know, the terrorists know. It's pointless. Send in a surgical strike team black ops style or stay the hell out of there. Warning and then bombing is pointless.

 

[DJ_KiDDvIcIOUs]

If the civilians know, the terrorists know. It's pointless. Send in a surgical strike team black ops style or stay the hell out of there. Warning and then bombing is pointless.

That's not true in the slightest. You have to remember most of the civilians in these do no support ISIL so they are not going to be warning them. It's also much easier to pack your family and a few belongings as opposed to weapons caches and equipment. So even if the get wind and heed the warning they still lose quite a bit.

 

[chaseter]

If you think terrorists won't find out about an early warning air campaign then I have some beach front property in AZ to sell you.

They can also move equipment. Maybe not all, true.

If you want to kill the leaders with minimal civilian impact then a strike team is it. Anything else is not working...as obviously seen.

 

[DJ_KiDDvIcIOUs]

If you think terrorists won't find out about an early warning air campaign then I have some beach front property in AZ to sell you.

They can also move equipment. Maybe not all, true.

If you want to kill the leaders with minimal civilian impact then a strike team is it. Anything else is not working...as obviously seen.

What branch were you in and when did you serve? Because I served from 2004-2006 and still have several friends in (or were in) the military today. You are also grossly uneducated on the threat of ISIL considering they now have no oil in their control and have been losing greatly in this war for over a year now.

They are also highly unorganized and lacking in both discipline and an effective chain of command. Two things that are needed to move equipment and weapons caches in a timely manner.

As for your claims that a surgical strike team is the most effective, that would be true if it were a high-value target. Unfortunately, that doesn't usually end up being the case so it's strategically more prudent to bomb with or without warning. You have no idea how expensive it is to launch a strike team and that's not even mentioning the blowback from the public should soldiers get killed during the mission.

 

[MagnarTheGreat]

ABC News - Clinton Vaults to a Double-Digit Lead

final debate, which likely voters by 52-29 percent say Clinton won.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/clin...d-boosted-broad-disapproval/story?id=42993821