Presidential Slugfest 2016 - Debate Watch Party!

[BullDog]

I don't use words like vicious lightly and especially when I don't add anything to back them up with. From my perspective you are just repeating right wing attacks that have been made against Hillary Clinton for over 20 years.

[C0LLETTE]

Originally Posted by Lyte

"Viscous" is also subjective and open to interpretation. Therefore, some may think a certain comment is vicious while others may not.

Everyone gets to decide what means what to them.

I get what you mean. Sewer rats are vicious but pet rats are not. But on the other hand, if you don't fear rats then a sewer rat might not be vicious; and if you fear rats, a pet rat might be vicious. Unless, of course, you don't give a rat's ass what others think or whether they understand what you're talking about.

[Martina]

I dont care about who Bill Clinton had sex with. I dont care about emails or bengazi. I care about the fact that she praised welfare reform as recently as 2008, welfare reform that doubled the number of extremely poor children in this country. She mentioned marion wright edelman again in this debate, not saying that edelman stopped supporting her politically after welfare reform. Between the crime bill and welfare reform, no one has done more to harm the extremely poor than bill and hillary clinton.

[*Anya*]

I was throughly confused.

Vicious Means something very different than viscous.

Must have been autocorrect.

[C0LLETTE]

Originally Posted by *Anya*

I was throughly confused.

Vicious Means something very different than viscous.

Must have been autocorrect.

throughly viscous? lol

[Bubala]

One thing we keep forgetting is that our democratic system, which contrary to totalitarianism, does not permit one single entity to do as they please without the majority support and buy-in from bodies such as the senate and the house and many more structures downstream. Sure, presidents have some executive powers such as the power of veto, however make no mistake a president is not a czar!

Washington politics are more complex than it might seem to a layman eye.
The game of policy often means one starts with theoretical hypothesis pitch that must be sold to key stakeholders time after time. "Selling" often resembles war trenches at times. In order to bring ones ideas or arguments to life, one must run an interesting political triathlon with many hurdles to overcome. Not everything can be conquered by money, lobbying or brute force alone. Modern times brought the new media social popularity beauty contest into play as well.

[C0LLETTE]

I'm guilty! I'm in love with Ana Navarro and I don't care what her politics are.

[Lyte]

lol Viscous viciousness??

Originally Posted by *Anya*

I was throughly confused.

Vicious Means something very different than viscous.

Must have been autocorrect.

[Lyte]

Bingo!

Originally Posted by C0LLETTE

Unless, of course, you don't give a rat's ass what others think or whether they understand what you're talking about.

[Lyte]

What would be the value in my providing an example of a Hillary remark which I found to be vicious? Some will agree with my assessment and some won't. So what would I have proven? Nothing.

Originally Posted by BullDog

I don't use words like vicious lightly and especially when I don't add anything to back them up with. From my perspective you are just repeating right wing attacks that have been made against Hillary Clinton for over 20 years.

[BullDog]

Originally Posted by Lyte

What would be the value in my providing an example of a Hillary remark which I found to be vicious? Some will agree with my assessment and some won't. So what would I have proven? Nothing.

So then what is the value of even saying what you did in the first place? You just repeated what Donald Trump said at the debate about Hillary Clinton and you are surprised that there are people who object to it when you don't offer to back it up?

Okay fine just throw it out there with no explanation then. I don't understand the purpose of that at all.

You're right that the word "vicious" can be interpreted in different ways, but it is not used in a neutral manner, especially in the specific context of Hillary Clinton.

There's a lot of shit said about Hillary Clinton that isn't actually true, and it gets repeated over and over again, and to me that matters a great deal. So I don't take it lightly when people use loaded words like "vicious" - especially after Donald Trump just used it.

[C0LLETTE]

Bulldog:
"There's a lot of shit said about Hillary Clinton that isn't actually true, and it gets repeated over and over again, and to me that matters a great deal. So I don't take it lightly when people use loaded words like "vicious" - especially after Donald Trump just used it."

Is it true that Hillary Clinton is The Devil?

[BullDog]

Originally Posted by C0LLETTE

Bulldog:
"There's a lot of shit said about Hillary Clinton that isn't actually true, and it gets repeated over and over again, and to me that matters a great deal. So I don't take it lightly when people use loaded words like "vicious" - especially after Donald Trump just used it."

Is it true that Hillary Clinton is The Devil?

I guess it depends on what your personal definition of The Devil is?

[kittygrrl]

Originally Posted by Lyte

I know this is common knowledge but... it still makes me a lil smirky smirk to say it... the Republican party is friggin' imploding!!

Could you explain why you think this is a good thing?

[Gemme]

Originally Posted by Lyte

Summery of that article reads... "Overall, we rate the claim Mostly False."

Mostly false still leaves a hell of a lotta room for truth. Also, that article does not represent the sum total of all of his or her comments.

Facts are that he came out hard (no pun intended ) denying everything, so she had to come out equally hard defending.

Actually, "mostly" anything leaves minimal room for any other option, because it's "most" not "least" or "equally" or "possibly".

No one on this Earth is going to be wholly one thing or another. Even Trump can be 'good' on certain days and to/for certain people. For example, I'd like to think that he treats his children well but given the Frontline story I saw about his and Hillary's history up through the campaign, that's unlikely as his own father was extremely harsh and he is very much like his father.

People love to rip Hillary about Bill's indiscretions and there was certainly a political spin there but there was also a woman who was betrayed, not just publicly but worldwide, by her husband. I can't imagine how horrible that would feel if it were me. And people blamed her for that. We rail against victim blaming but it's okay when it comes to her? Sure, she's responsible for her part in whatever happened afterwards, but it seems to get lost by the wayside time and time again that she was lied to as well as the rest of us.

If this were a court of law, would her husband's indiscretions be allowed in as evidence and go to state of mind or would they be ruled out? <----pondering

This isn't Mr. Smith Goes to Washington, people. Politics = lying and secrecy. Is it right? No. Is it unusual? No. Is lying or secrecy better, worse or neutral to a 'bomb them all and let God figure it out' mentality?

There isn't a perfect option and there are issues with ALL of the candidates, even the ones on the outside of the limelight. You choose the one that best supports your personal beliefs and/or best supports your ability to live a full and open life and hope for the best. That's all any of us can do.

[Lyte]

I don't express my opinion with the hope that you or anyine else finds value in it. I express my.opinion because it pleases me to do so.

You assume too much. Where did I say I was surprised?

I'm not Trump so perhaps you might consider redirecting your hostility for him ... or for whomever else... where it belongs.

Originally Posted by BullDog

So then what is the value of even saying what you did in the first place? You just repeated what Donald Trump said at the debate about Hillary Clinton and you are surprised that there are people who object to it when you don't offer to back it up?

Okay fine just throw it out there with no explanation then. I don't understand the purpose of that at all.

You're right that the word "vicious" can be interpreted in different ways, but it is not used in a neutral manner, especially in the specific context of Hillary Clinton.

There's a lot of shit said about Hillary Clinton that isn't actually true, and it gets repeated over and over again, and to me that matters a great deal. So I don't take it lightly when people use loaded words like "vicious" - especially after Donald Trump just used it.

[A. Spectre]

Pat Robertson calls lewd video ‘macho talk’


“Let’s face it. A guy does something 11 years ago, there was a conversation in Hollywood where he’s trying to look like he’s macho,” Robertson said on his show, as first reported by Raw Story. “And 11 years after that, they surface it from The Washington Post to whatever, bring it out within 30 days or so of the election and this is supposed to be the death blow and everybody writes him off, ‘Okay, he’s dead, now you better get to get out of the way and let Mike Pence run the campaign.’”

“The Donald says no,” he continued. “He’s like the phoenix. They think he’s dead, he’s come back. And he came back strong. So, he won that debate.”




*Faux christian speaking about a faux human. THIS is a far cry from him discussing Bill Clinton back in the day.

Why what Trump was caught on tape saying is such a big deal. MOST men do not brag about sexually assaulting women, why? because MOST men know right from wrong. THIS, shows us Trump does not know right from wrong. This man is broken, no redeeming him, no educating him.

[Lyte]

The party has veered so far to the right that a whack job like Trump could be chosen as their presidential nominee. Trump is symptom of just how broken the party has become. Even though I disagree with most of what they have ever stood for... that's still a very bad thing for the US.

At some point... hopefully soon ... because they are imploding... they will.look at where they are now and ask themselves "What the f*ck are we doing?!" "How the f*ck did we get here?!"

Originally Posted by kittygrrl

Could you explain why you think this is a good thing?

[BullDog]

Originally Posted by Lyte

I don't express my opinion with the hope that you or anyine else finds value in it. I express my.opinion because it pleases me to do so.

You assume too much. Where did I say I was surprised?

I'm not Trump so perhaps you might consider redirecting your hostility for him ... or for whomever else... where it belongs.

I talk to myself all the time I just don't do it in a discussion forum.

I expect when I post something in a political thread someone might have something to say back. Otherwise, why would I even bother. People don't always respond to my posts and that's okay too, but I just don't throw things out there to talk to myself. That seems very odd to me.

I haven't been hostile to you. I was very clear in my posts - which you can either ignore or respond to as you wish.

[Lyte]

"Most" could be anything from 51% to 99% of something. It is just more of ... whatever.. than it is less of whatever.

More importantly, it's just the opinion of article writer that most of what Hillary said wasn't vicious. His/Her opinion is neither right or wrong. It's simply an opinion.

Originally Posted by Gemme

Actually, "mostly" anything leaves minimal room for any other option, because it's "most" not "least" or "equally" or "possibly"