Presidential Debates Discussion Thread

[teachercd]

 

 

 

Come to think of it...why are we okay with the security at Memorial Stadium opening up our bags?

Do you want to go to a game in a 90,000 seat stadium with people who have not been screened? In today's world, really do you?

 

I guess I have never thought about it as in being worried of being hurt. But what I mean is, why are we okay with this but not okay with frisking people on the street?

 

They both seem kind of wrong.

 

There is a HUGE difference. Someone just walking down the street has all the freedom in the world to do so with a purse or bag. The police just randomly picking out people they think look bad and frisking them violates their right to walk peacefully down the street.

 

Now...someone coming to a Husker game has chosen to do so KNOWING that if they bring a bag, the bag will be searched. That is to say EVERYONE's bag is going to be searched. Also, we all I'm sure feel as though Memorial Stadium is a public place. However, it is not owned by the public. It is owned by the University. They have the right to put in place security measures (to an extent) as they see fit as long as it is equally applied to everyone.

 

It's no different than going through a metal detector when going to the airport or into a federal court building.

 

Got it!

 

It is okay in some places. Not others.

 

I agree 100%

[HuskerNation1]

http://www.mediaite.com/online/chelsea-clinton-criticizes-trump-for-invoking-her-dads-past-juanita-broaddrick-responds/

 

This gets pretty personal. Juanita Broaddrick lays it on think in responding to Chelsea. I think Trump missed an opportunity when Hillary attached him regarding Trump's comments about various women. I agree, Hillary has every right, and Trump is very much a target for his sleaze ball comments but Trump could have put it to a quick end by saying, "Hillary, I see you haven't invited the Juanita Broaddrick, Kathleen Willey, Monica L, or Pamela Jones (or who knows how many more) to sit on the front row with the beauty queen. Why not?" Both Clinton and Trump deserve those difficult questions and Hillary, as an enabler, shouldn't have been left off the hook so easily.

 

Yes, I just posted this in another thread. Trump was going to bring this up in the debate since Hillary brought up the miss american contestant, but he said he simply could not bring it up in front of Chelsea. Hillary openly trashed these women, some of whom were victims of Bill's forceful advances. She has no moral high ground when it comes to female empowerment.

[HuskerNation1]

On the Slick Willy stuff, I pray Trump goes down that road. It would bring his true colors out for all to see. He's a classless piece of garbage, and I would prefer for as many people to realize it as possible.

 

I'm sure his rabid, insane base would love it, but polls have shown time and time again Hillary's numbers rise when people try to pin Bill's actions on her, with women in particular. Probably because that's ludicrous. People feel empathy for Hillary Clinton when people attack her like that. Think about how rare that phenomenon is.

 

Dude-She openly trashed the women that Bill victimized. Hillary deserves scorn for how she responded to them...not sympathy as you are suggesting.

[NM11046]

If we are gonna play "list the things the candidate deserves scorn for' your boy should be included too. And his list would be SUBSTANTIAL. I simply dont have time to type out the list, and lets be honest why should I waste my time. It wouldn't be something you would read or consider.

[HuskerNation1]

If we are gonna play "list the things the candidate deserves scorn for' your boy should be included too. And his list would be SUBSTANTIAL. I simply dont have time to type out the list, and lets be honest why should I waste my time. It wouldn't be something you would read or consider.

 

That's the point. Both have said some bad things over their years, and Bill actually did some really bad things, and I'm not talking the consensual stuff. If it's ok for HIllary to bring up things that happened 20 years ago, it should be ok for Trump to as well. He just needs to learn to do it in a more matter of fact way rather than being overly passionate. He could follow Hillary's lead in one of her ads out and talk to mothers out there about imagining their daughter being victimized, and then blamed or treated poorly for speaking up about it, and then pivot to Hillary. He hasn't quite mastered the art of making an emotional plea (rather than a plea of anger).

[Danny Bateman]

Hillary Clinton is not a robot. I know that's contrary to popular belief, but follow me here. How exactly is she supposed to react to the women who her husband cheated with?

[HuskerNation1]

Hillary Clinton is not a robot. I know that's contrary to popular belief, but follow me here. How exactly is she supposed to react to the women who her husband cheated with?

 

 

As I said earlier, it's her decision. If I had a spouse who was a serial cheater and I knew about it and everybody else did too, I would leave that person, especially if I had children and wanted to set an example that cheating is showing a complete lack of respect and trust. She chose otherwise, and that was her prerogative. As for the other women, I would not go out and publicly trash them, and if a spouse victimized them, I would apologize on behalf of the family. I also would not go out and claim to be a champion of women's rights and make speeches about how "Every victim has a right to be heard."

[Danny Bateman]

You realize that Trump attacked them too, right?

 

 

The allegations around Clinton have been debated and relitigated over decades and there's scant public evidence to support claims that Hillary Clinton had been "vindictive" against women linked to her husband.

 

Ironically, the same can't be said of Trump: He publicly called Paula Jones, who settled a harassment suit against Bill Clinton, a "loser" and mocked Lewinsky's appearance. As recently as a 2008 CNN interview, he called the conduct that led to Clinton's impeachment "totally unimportant."

 

So why is it OK that we overlook his ACTUAL, documented demeaning of these women, but lambaste Clinton for her ALLEGED derision of them?

It's just unbelievable. In almost any situation he drags out, Trump lives in a glass house. And yet, he's still chucking rocks like a child trying to break a window.

 

As to the bolded, we should trust Donald's assessment of the situation, eh?

[HuskerNation1]

You realize that Trump attacked them too, right?

 

 

The allegations around Clinton have been debated and relitigated over decades and there's scant public evidence to support claims that Hillary Clinton had been "vindictive" against women linked to her husband.

 

Ironically, the same can't be said of Trump: He publicly called Paula Jones, who settled a harassment suit against Bill Clinton, a "loser" and mocked Lewinsky's appearance. As recently as a 2008 CNN interview, he called the conduct that led to Clinton's impeachment "totally unimportant."

 

So why is it OK that we overlook his ACTUAL, documented demeaning of these women, but lambaste Clinton for her ALLEGED derision of them?

 

It's just unbelievable. In almost any situation he drags out, Trump lives in a glass house. And yet, he's still chucking rocks like a child trying to break a window.

 

As to the bolded, we should trust Donald's assessment of the situation, eh?

 

I'm not saying Trump should be overlooked for any of his comments. Lord knows on here and in the rest of the Progressive left of America every single thing he has said is making the rounds, but the coverage needs to be evened out. Most of the coverage in the 90s was focused on the Lewinsky scandal which was fully consensual. Glowers and Paula Jones also were brought up but were dismissed as key stories. Broaddrick's story never got the attention it deserved. Also, Hillary was not running for POTUS in the 90s, so her role in defending a male predator and attacking these women was not the focus. She is now running in 2016 claiming to be a champion for women which is completely ludicrous.

 

Let's not also forget that Hillary's first case as an attorney in 1975 was defending a child rapist. In an interview she did in the 1980s, she admitted she knew he was guilty and laughed about it. This, along with her treatment of Bill's victims, should all be fair game if Team Clinton is bringing up all sorts of statements from Trump's past. The next 40 days should be quite the fight.

 

http://lawnewz.com/high-profile/sexual-assault-victim-slams-hillary-clinton-for-defending-attacker-and-laughing-about-case/

[Danny Bateman]

So, I found these. They're done by that Song a Day guy from Youtube. That he's been able to do that for almost ten years is actually pretty amazing.

 

Enough to make me laugh. Got to keep this election lighthearted sometimes.

 

 

[HuskerNation1]

It looks like Trump was right that his microphone was defective at the debate. While it still should not account for his poor debate performance, it will play into the narrative that the debates are stacked against him, especially given the evidence I provided earlier that Holt asked him 4 times more negative questions than he did Hillary, and fact-checked Trump but did not Hillary.

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/01/us/politics/donald-trump-debate.html?_r=0

[NM11046]

Didn't they end up determining that it may have been giving problems IN the room but that everything was fine on tv? You know, where the 80 million people watched it?

[Danny Bateman]

This narrative that anything is stacked against Trump is completely untethered from reality and dangerous. He's tossing out these excuses because he flopped, big league, and he has to point the finger elsewhere instead of saying "Ok, I sucked." Have you ever noticed how nothing is EVER his own fault?

 

Please don't try to legitimize these claims. He's trying to undermine the legitimacy of our democracy.

[NM11046]

Alec Baldwin NAILED it.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-nQGBZQrtT0

[HuskerNation1]

Didn't they end up determining that it may have been giving problems IN the room but that everything was fine on tv? You know, where the 80 million people watched it?

 

I think the point is that he may have been getting some interference or not hearing himself as loudly in the room. Again, it shouldn't have been an excuse for his poor performance, but for those stating that Trump was just making stuff about about his microphone, they were wrong.