Presidential Debates Discussion Thread

[Moiraine]

 

 

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.

 

 

One's worse than the other, imo. Everyone has their bags checked at Memorial Stadium. Male, female, White, Black, gay, straight. Though if you don't have a bag you don't get checked, last time I went. Which means they're sexist 'cause it's probably more women who get checked

 

The problem with stop and frisk is it will inevitably lead to racial profiling, which is something I was guessing myself but I did a search...

 

 

 

 

Also:

 

[TGHusker]

 

 

If #TrumpWon trended there earlier, it isn't now. But there's no evidence it did start there.

 

Update: A spokesperson for TrendsMap confirms that the map isn't theirs -- and that the hashtag started in the U.S., according to their data.

 

"This is certainly not from any of our tools and do not know of any tools that look this way," Kathy Mellett said in an email. "Based upon our analysis, #TrumpWon primarily came from the US. There was an initial spike just after the debate followed by a much larger one a few hours later. In particular, around 97% of the initial spike of approximately 6,000 tweets came from the US." The next highest countries? Canada and the U.K.

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/09/27/that-viral-image-showing-trumpwon-starting-in-russia-is-probably-fake/

 

 

 

 

Clearly I didn't do enough due diligence before posting that. Mea culpa.

 

The lesson, as always, is this: Nothing on the Internet is real.

 

 

Although - I am real. And available for beers.

 

Cheers, AS BC would say "I feel your pain"

[BigRedBuster]

 

 

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.

[Moiraine]

[zoogs]

DJT should go back to the world of reality television where he belongs.

[BigRedBuster]

DJT should go back to the world of reality television where he belongs.

Looks to me like he doesn't even belong there.

[BigRedBuster]

Gee....I wonder why this slime ball doesn't have more than 20% of the female vote.

[BigRedBuster]

I keep thinking back to this article. Hillary was EASILY able to bate him into doing what she wanted him to do and say.

 

This is the mentality this guy has....and he's supposed to be this great negotiator??? That's the biggest line of BS that has been said in this entire debate. The guy is a two bit fraud. A great negotiator isn't played like a fiddle like that.

[TGHusker]

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.

[NM11046]

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.

I think the main difference is that he would be pointing out discretions of her husband - not Hillary. She has not said one thing (or threatened to) about Melania, Ivana or the other one. And if she did? Oh boy ....

[Moiraine]

 

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.

I think the main difference is that he would be pointing out discretions of her husband - not Hillary. She has not said one thing (or threatened to) about Melania, Ivana or the other one. And if she did? Oh boy ....

 

 

I can't even imagine. I hadn't thought of it until now but what a huge double standard. Even if Melania had be accused of something awful, for Clinton to talk about it the way Trump has about Bill, she would be called names, jokes would be made about cat fights, she'd be told she's jealous, we'd never hear the end of it.

[NM11046]

 

 

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.

I think the main difference is that he would be pointing out discretions of her husband - not Hillary. She has not said one thing (or threatened to) about Melania, Ivana or the other one. And if she did? Oh boy ....

 

 

I can't even imagine. I hadn't thought of it until now but what a huge double standard. Even if Melania had be accused of something awful, for Clinton to talk about it the way Trump has about Bill, she would be called names, jokes would be made about cat fights, she'd be told she's jealous, we'd never hear the end of it.

 

Yup. And we are still many years away from a woman cheating on her husband and having the public blame the husband for it. The other way around? Everyday.

[Danny Bateman]

DJT should go back to the world of reality television eighth circle of Hell where he belongs.

 

I think you had a typo in there Zoogs. FIFY.

[Danny Bateman]

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.

[zoogs]

The keys were right next to each other. Must've slipped.