Debate #2

[Loki]

You make it sound like Bush was informed about foreign policy in 2000. It's a useful question not because it matters whether a presidential candidate knows the leader of a specific country but because it shows their level of preparation. Do we want a president who spent 50 years of his life without the slightest interest in foreign affairs?

[LittleFuzzy]

The second is Johnson, being a painfully straightforward guy, may have thought the best way to answer the question was to name a foreign leader with whom he had had real interactions. Johnson's actual answer was former Mexican President Vincente Fox, but he openly blanked on the name. It's reasonable to imagine Johnson had interactions with Fox, right?

I realize I'm being highly charitable. But candidly I've never been much for the media asking trivia questions about foreign leaders. Happened in 2000 with Bush and it was equally useless.

If he's that painfully straightforward and blind regarding verbal gladhanding, then that's grounds for saying he shouldn't be President either. There is absolutely no interpretation, charitable or not, of that interview which shows us someone who is prepared or worthy of being POTUS.

[Veldan Rath]

Again I'll ask: Is this his worst campaign or total political crime? If so, he's miles better than the other two.

[Loki]

Only if the presidential election is a morality play instead of a way to choose someone for the most powerful and complex job in the world.

[LittleFuzzy]

Again I'll ask: Is this his worst campaign or total political crime? If so, he's miles better than the other two.

He's not miles better than Hillary. And I'm sure it's not his worst, not after being governor of New Mexico for eight years, but he's not getting the attention the other two are. Doesn't matter, nothing Hillary's done marks her as sheerly unable to perform the duties of the office. Johnson has demonstrated he IS unable and unwilling.

[RandBlade]

He's not miles better than Hillary. And I'm sure it's not his worst, not after being governor of New Mexico for eight years, but he's not getting the attention the other two are. Doesn't matter, nothing Hillary's done marks her as sheerly unable to perform the duties of the office. Johnson has demonstrated he IS unable and unwilling.

How tragic that America is about to elect a President by default.

Not because of any strength Hillary has but because her only challengers were a far left socialist loon and a "far right" racist loon. Not a single challenger available in the entire country from either party for the position of leader of the free world.

[Lewkowski]

Only if the presidential election is a morality play instead of a way to choose someone for the most powerful and complex job in the world.

Based on your posts in the Trump thread you do think it is a morality play.

[Loki]

Nope, you don't see me going after his morals (or lack thereof). I attack his temperament, but that's a necessary part of being a president.

[Lewkowski]

Nope, you don't see me going after his morals (or lack thereof). I attack his temperament, but that's a necessary part of being a president.

You just linked about accusations of him groping women.

[Loki]

You just linked about accusations of him groping women.

And the comment near that accusation said what?

[Lewkowski]

Him being a conman - which goes towards morality.

In any event I'd rather have a leader that has a moral compass. Sadly neither Trump nor Clinton has one.

[Loki]

Nope, towards him sabotaging his minority and women outreach efforts. And the conman referred to him just making shit up. He knows nothing. He thinks he knows everything. He never learns. That's a terrible trait for a president.

[Flixy]

Yeah, and I find it weird that half of the GOP is dropping because of his comments about women but only one finds it problematic that he flat out ignores DNA evidence andjustice. I mean sure, both are bad, but the latter would be more worrying for the guy in charge of the executive branch.

[Loki]

No, most of those GOPers have now reversed themselves and re-endorsed.

[GGT]

I think our "debates" are pathetic. They're more like media events or reality TV entertainment, and the constant polling/snap polls are like who won America's Got Talent I'd rather see a moderator like Charlie Rose asking in-depth questions, with the candidates seated around a table (not on a stage) and NO studio audience.

[Lewkowski]

I think our "debates" are pathetic. They're more like media events or reality TV entertainment, and the constant polling/snap polls are like who won America's Got Talent I'd rather see a moderator like Charlie Rose asking in-depth questions, with the candidates seated around a table (not on a stage) and NO studio audience.

Studio audience is dumb I agree on that.

Frankly I think they should both be put in separate sound proof booths. You have 2 minutes - go. The other person can't interrupt, the mic is off. As soon as 120 seconds passes the mic cuts off. The other person has 2 minutes to respond. Then a 1 minute rebuttal followed by another. Next topic. No possibility of bias (questions maybe... but those can even be agreed on before hand). It has always irked me that these things are so poorly run.