Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 jasper76 wrote:
Anyone gonna watch the "Commander in Chief Forum" tonight?

FIrst time the two nominees will be in the same building at the same time for a while, although its not a debate and they will apparently not appear simultaneously.

Not simultaneously you say? You know who else you never see simultaneously? Clark Kent and Superman.

I'm not saying that they are... just that it is a biiiiit suspicious

It's not intended to be a debate, just a QA session, intended specifically for national security.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 jasper76 wrote:
Anyone gonna watch the "Commander in Chief Forum" tonight?

FIrst time the two nominees will be in the same building at the same time for a while, although its not a debate and they will apparently not appear simultaneously.

Not simultaneously you say? You know who else you never see simultaneously? Clark Kent and Superman.

I'm not saying that they are... just that it is a biiiiit suspicious

This definitely smacks of Photoshop:

How nice of Bill to bring his mistress out for an occasion.

 djones520 wrote:
How nice of Bill to bring his mistress out for an occasion.

I think that's one of Trump's wives. But everything's negotiable, right?

 djones520 wrote:
How nice of Bill to bring his mistress out for an occasion.

And he even let them wear a bow tie, what a gentleman.

Should probably be a bit more careful with how he looks at them next time though. You can really see the intensity in their eyes as they look at each other. Hillary may get suspicious.

So the summary for today so far is:

- secret Benghazi emails hidden by Clinton: one email from an ambassador saying "good job"
- I know more than the generals and I have a plan for ISIS plan by Trump: I'm gonna tell the generals to come up with a plan in 30 days!

 whembly wrote:

Spoiler:

I am confused at what we are supposed to be seeing. She's just drinking some water.


Over all this "Clinton is sick!" stuff is ridiculous. The trump supporters don't have anything real to attacker her on, so they have to use conspiracy theories.

And if we need to be worried about anybody's health it's Trump's. He's older than her, eats like gak judging by the photo's of him eating, golf seems to be the only exercise he gets, and is overweight. His "medical records" amounted to a doctor's note that says "I have the best health!" But you don't hear that line of attack, because their are legitimate things to attack Trump on.

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

 whembly wrote:

Spoiler:

I am confused at what we are supposed to be seeing. She's just drinking some water.


Over all this "Clinton is sick!" stuff is ridiculous. The trump supporters don't have anything real to attacker her on, so they have to use conspiracy theories.

And if we need to be worried about anybody's health it's Trump's. He's older than her, eats like gak judging by the photo's of him eating, golf seems to be the only exercise he gets, and is overweight. His "medical records" amounted to a doctor's note that says "I have the best health!" But you don't hear that line of attack, because their are legitimate things to attack Trump on.

When she takes a sip, two objects fall out of her mouth into the bottom of the glass.

 djones520 wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

 whembly wrote:

Spoiler:

I am confused at what we are supposed to be seeing. She's just drinking some water.


Over all this "Clinton is sick!" stuff is ridiculous. The trump supporters don't have anything real to attacker her on, so they have to use conspiracy theories.

And if we need to be worried about anybody's health it's Trump's. He's older than her, eats like gak judging by the photo's of him eating, golf seems to be the only exercise he gets, and is overweight. His "medical records" amounted to a doctor's note that says "I have the best health!" But you don't hear that line of attack, because their are legitimate things to attack Trump on.

When she takes a sip, two objects fall out of her mouth into the bottom of the glass.

Looks like werther's...

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

 whembly wrote:

Spoiler:

I am confused at what we are supposed to be seeing. She's just drinking some water.


Over all this "Clinton is sick!" stuff is ridiculous. The trump supporters don't have anything real to attacker her on, so they have to use conspiracy theories.

And if we need to be worried about anybody's health it's Trump's. He's older than her, eats like gak judging by the photo's of him eating, golf seems to be the only exercise he gets, and is overweight. His "medical records" amounted to a doctor's note that says "I have the best health!" But you don't hear that line of attack, because their are legitimate things to attack Trump on.

At the beginning something comes out of her mouth into the water.

Probably just a cough sweet or some other form of hard sweet which she was sucking to ease her throat and try to avoid a dry mouth.

Well... Hillary's performance tonight is going as well as expected...


Trump is going to trip over his dick tonight I'm sure...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Trump is trying to filibuster with bs.

In fairness, it's all he has.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

Trump is describing an occupation of territory (Iraq) and the indefinite raping of a nation's resources (oil).

Does anyone hear this?



Automatically Appended Next Post:
Jaysus... the debates is going to be a true trainwreck...

After watching that, I am more scared of a hypothetical Trump administration than ever before.

 whembly wrote:

Trump is describing an occupation of territory (Iraq) and the indefinite raping of a nation's resources (oil).

Does anyone hear this?



Automatically Appended Next Post:
Jaysus... the debates is going to be a true trainwreck...

-Trump promised citizenship to illegal immigrants who will join the Armed Forces, if I heard him correctly.

-Trump called for some kind of separation between the sexes in the Armed Forces to solve the sexual assault problem., if I heard him correctly

This dude just makes the gak up as he goes along, its so transparent he has no idea what he's talking about. He's going to get destroyed in a debate.

Eh... Hillary will be a dreadful CINC.

More failed, dumb policies.

More PC'sms and SJW'isms in place of strategy.

But hey... at least we know she won't be Putin's bitch.

 whembly wrote:

But hey... at least we know she won't be Putin's bitch.

One things clear. Trump has more repsect for Putin than he does for our General Officer Corps. "Reduced to rubble" was the chosen phrase.

He also seems to think he can appoint generals as though they were judges or something.

 jasper76 wrote:

 whembly wrote:

But hey... at least we know she won't be Putin's bitch.

One things clear. Trump has more repsect for Putin than he does for our General Officer Corps. "Reduced to rubble" was the chosen phrase.

Well... in fairness, Obama has been criticized for placing more "yes men" in the general hierarchy. But, Trump can't helpself and vomited a ridiculously poor choice of words.

 whembly wrote:

Trump is describing an occupation of territory (Iraq) and the indefinite raping of a nation's resources (oil).

Does anyone hear this?

'To the victor go the spoils', he said

Just watched the NBC forum thing too, as I'm off work today.

Clinton seemed calm but passionate, tried to give long nuanced answers (the moderator telling her to "keep it brief" constantly was becoming a bit annoying) and a few concrete positions on things. Solid performance. Stating unequivocally that there won't be boots on the ground in Syria or Iraq is a little self limiting though, and while that should definitely be the aim, those words will come back to bite her if the situation significantly changed in the next few years.

Trump was a word salad spinner, saying everything and nothing at the same time. I had to turn it off for a bit after he turned a question about Putin into a screed on "we have to take our country back again" and kept repeating "make America great again" - the sheer pointlessness of trying to make sense of his positions was getting to me. I also really hated that when asked about undocumented people in the military, and if they should be able to stay in Ameica, they let him get away with "I'll look into it". His big immigration policy reveal was LAST GODDAMMED WEEK, why doesn't he know what his policy on this obvious issue is?

His position on literally pillaging foreign countries is both illegal and immoral, not that it would stop him. Saying he'd want to change all (or most of) the generals currently for his own yes men, and calling the generals failures will probably go well with the top brass. Luckily, they'll never have to work for trump anyway.

All that said, Donald didn't literally crap his pants on live television, so it'll be seen as draw, I'm sure.

 whembly wrote:
More PC'sms and SJW'isms in place of strategy.

Wow, you're turning into an edgy 14 year old.

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

 whembly wrote:
More PC'sms and SJW'isms in place of strategy.

Wow, you're turning into an edgy 14 year old.

...and that's all you got?

Try harder.

NOTE:

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/236985.page#673019

 whembly wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

 whembly wrote:
More PC'sms and SJW'isms in place of strategy.

Wow, you're turning into an edgy 14 year old.

...and that's all you got?

Try harder.

Your using the words "PC" and "SJW" as ways to attack arguments. I can't help but think of it in any other way. The thing is, I know you are a smart person, I really enjoyed debating you. It has both changed and solidified some of my beliefs. And it's sad too see you reduced to the same buzz-words the anti-feminist and alt-right crowd use. Especially when their are so many legitimate ways to criticize her policy.

So you try harder. You are an intelligent person with strong beliefs and arguments, I hold great respect for that, as there are too many people who aren't willing to debate their ideas. Aren't willing to have their ideas challenged, or challenge others on their's. Articulate what you believe, don't just spit out buzzwords as arguments. I disagree with you on almost everything, but it's sad to see you reduced to this. You can do so much better, don't settle for arguments like this.

 jasper76 wrote:
Trump called for some kind of separation between the sexes in the Armed Forces to solve the sexual assault problem., if I heard him correctly

If I were in the military, I'd be concerned that the guy auditioning for the job of commander-in-chief appears to think that US troops are rapists who can't control themselves and so need to be separated from women.

Anyway, lets have more of of watching frames of Hillary Clinton drinking water like it was the Zapruder footage instead.

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

 whembly wrote:
More PC'sms and SJW'isms in place of strategy.

Wow, you're turning into an edgy 14 year old.

...and that's all you got?

Try harder.

Your using the words "PC" and "SJW" as ways to attack arguments. I can't help but think of it in any other way. The thing is, I know you are a smart person, I really enjoyed debating you. It has both changed and solidified some of my beliefs. And it's sad too see you reduced to the same buzz-words the anti-feminist and alt-right crowd use. Especially when their are so many legitimate ways to criticize her policy.

So you try harder. You are an intelligent person with strong beliefs and arguments, I hold great respect for that, as there are too many people who aren't willing to debate their ideas. Aren't willing to have their ideas challenged, or challenge others on their's. Articulate what you believe, don't just spit out buzzwords as arguments. I disagree with you on almost everything, but it's sad to see you reduced to this. You can do so much better, don't settle for arguments like this.

Then please articulate why without carving out snippets from my post and reducing them to buzzwords.

I've made my opinions on Clinton very clear so I'm surprised you felt the need to respond in such fashion.

Frankly, her actions to date on the campaign trail has been to leverage this election as a referendum against Trump. As if that's the only thing she can do to win the election.

For as long as Clinton been in government, you'd think she'd made some significant mark during her tenures that would make you want to vote for her, rather than voting for Clinton simply because she's Not-Trump (which is understandable) or the anti-GOP.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ouze wrote:

 jasper76 wrote:
Trump called for some kind of separation between the sexes in the Armed Forces to solve the sexual assault problem., if I heard him correctly

If I were in the military, I'd be concerned that the guy auditioning for the job of commander-in-chief appears to think that US troops are rapists who can't control themselves and so need to be separated from women.

Right there with you... it's sorta amazeballs that the recent polls of military voters vastly supports Trump over Clinton.

Makes you wonder... is it really an "enthusiastic support for Trump?' or simply 'NeverHillary mindset'??

Anyway, lets have more of of watching frames of Hillary Clinton drinking water like it was the Zapruder footage instead.

Kudos for making me google-fu Zapruder... in seemed familiar, but I couldn't place it when I read that.

 whembly wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

 whembly wrote:
More PC'sms and SJW'isms in place of strategy.

Wow, you're turning into an edgy 14 year old.

...and that's all you got?

Try harder.

Your using the words "PC" and "SJW" as ways to attack arguments. I can't help but think of it in any other way. The thing is, I know you are a smart person, I really enjoyed debating you. It has both changed and solidified some of my beliefs. And it's sad too see you reduced to the same buzz-words the anti-feminist and alt-right crowd use. Especially when their are so many legitimate ways to criticize her policy.

So you try harder. You are an intelligent person with strong beliefs and arguments, I hold great respect for that, as there are too many people who aren't willing to debate their ideas. Aren't willing to have their ideas challenged, or challenge others on their's. Articulate what you believe, don't just spit out buzzwords as arguments. I disagree with you on almost everything, but it's sad to see you reduced to this. You can do so much better, don't settle for arguments like this.

Then please articulate why without carving out snippets from my post and reducing them to buzzwords.

I've made my opinions on Clinton very clear so I'm surprised you felt the need to respond in such fashion.

They are buzzwords. Just because you have other words around them doesn't make them any less of a buzzword. They are buzzwords peddled by anti-feminists and the alt-right. And you are neither an anti-feminist, nor a racist donkey-cave (at least from what I've seen you right), so It's depressing to see you use their "arguments". Because I don't want you to become one.

And you have made your opinion clear on Clinton, you treat her like the devil himself, who can do no good. You latch on to conspiracy theories instead of real issues and legislation. But that doesn't make a convincing argument.

Frankly, her actions to date on the campaign trail has been to leverage this election as a referendum against Trump. As if that's the only thing she can do to win the election.

For as long as Clinton been in government, you'd think she'd made some significant mark during her tenures that would make you want to vote for her, rather than voting for Clinton simply because she's the anti-GOP.

You're right. I mean besides more than two(?) decades of service, a concrete plan for legislation, a view on economics that fits mine almost to a T, years of experience on the international scene, views on equality that mirror my own quite closely, and the knowledge and expertise to navigate through DC politics, there's no real reason for me to vote for her.

The reason you don't hear many people talking about how much they love Clinton for policy reasons is that it's a really boring conversation. You know exactly what you're getting from her: the mainstream democratic party platform, executed competently enough while staying well within the center-left and not doing anything that could upset the mainstream power groups too much. There just isn't that much to discuss, you either agree with that platform or disagree with it, and you probably aren't going to change your mind on the subject. So the interesting conversations this election are "what utter disaster is Trump's campaign going to come up with next" and "should conservatives who disagree with the democrats on policy vote for Clinton anyway because Trump is really that awful".

Surprised Trump's man-crush on Putin isn't making the waves that it should. I swear, the way Trump goes on about him it's like his candidacy is the product of some Soviet-era Manchurian Candidate project using out of mothball mind control chips. And being Soviet technology, they now constitute about 75% of the interior volume of Trump's cranium and have faulty wiring.

There might be lots wrong with the US at the moment, from the collapse of the middle class to increasingly divisive identity politics, but there is absolutely nothing about Putin's governance any right-thinking person who aspires to CINC has to admire or seek to emulate. That is, unless his or her thing is political assassination of journalists and the illegal seizure of other people's property (which I suppose explains Trump's comments on eminent domain).

 Peregrine wrote:
The reason you don't hear many people talking about how much they love Clinton for policy reasons is that it's a really boring conversation. You know exactly what you're getting from her: the mainstream democratic party platform, executed competently enough while staying well within the center-left and not doing anything that could upset the mainstream power groups too much. There just isn't that much to discuss, you either agree with that platform or disagree with it, and you probably aren't going to change your mind on the subject. So the interesting conversations this election are "what utter disaster is Trump's campaign going to come up with next" and "should conservatives who disagree with the democrats on policy vote for Clinton anyway because Trump is really that awful".

It is hard to get a crowd riled up and chanting for "reasonable centre leftist policies as time and the political situation allow!"

 Ouze wrote:

 jasper76 wrote:
Trump called for some kind of separation between the sexes in the Armed Forces to solve the sexual assault problem., if I heard him correctly

If I were in the military, I'd be concerned that the guy auditioning for the job of commander-in-chief appears to think that US troops are rapists who can't control themselves and so need to be separated from women.

Bear in mind that Trump is being coached by Roger Ailes

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/07/business/media/roger-ailes-stands-defiant-as-fox-settles-lawsuits.html?_r=0

Fox News’s parent company, 21st Century Fox, publicly apologized to Gretchen Carlson, the former Fox News host who filed the lawsuit against Mr. Ailes on July 6 that led to his swift departure. Ms. Carlson received $20 million as part of the settlement, and 21st Century Fox provided settlements to at least two other women who also said that they were harassed by Mr. Ailes, according to a person briefed on the settlements.

 jasper76 wrote:
Anyone gonna watch the "Commander in Chief Forum" tonight?

FIrst time the two nominees will be in the same building at the same time for a while, although its not a debate and they will apparently not appear simultaneously.

Nope. Considering I wouldn't vote for either why would I?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

 whembly wrote:

Spoiler:

I am confused at what we are supposed to be seeing. She's just drinking some water.


Over all this "Clinton is sick!" stuff is ridiculous. The trump supporters don't have anything real to attacker her on, so they have to use conspiracy theories.

And if we need to be worried about anybody's health it's Trump's. He's older than her, eats like gak judging by the photo's of him eating, golf seems to be the only exercise he gets, and is overweight. His "medical records" amounted to a doctor's note that says "I have the best health!" But you don't hear that line of attack, because their are legitimate things to attack Trump on.

At the beginning something comes out of her mouth into the water.

Probably just a cough sweet or some other form of hard sweet which she was sucking to ease her throat and try to avoid a dry mouth.

Its...its...a SUGAR CUBE! The ANT PEOPLE ARE HERE!!!!
I for one welcome our new Ant Overlords and celebrate the beneficent management of our planet.

 Ouze wrote:

 jasper76 wrote:
Trump called for some kind of separation between the sexes in the Armed Forces to solve the sexual assault problem., if I heard him correctly

If I were in the military, I'd be concerned that the guy auditioning for the job of commander-in-chief appears to think that US troops are rapists who can't control themselves and so need to be separated from women.

Anyway, lets have more of of watching frames of Hillary Clinton drinking water like it was the Zapruder footage instead.

Ouze, we're concerned about him, for a lot more reasons then that.