Skip to main content

Moderator: Mr. Trump it’s just come across the teleprompter that Kim Jong Un is ready to use a nuclear weapons. Now North Korea and China is a big threat. How will you solve these problems if your President? Thank you Mr. Trump for your answer.

Next Question:
Moderator: Mr. Cruz what do you think about all of Mr. Trumps failed business adventures? Thank you for your answer Mr. Cruz.

Next Question:
Moderator: Mr. Rubio do you think Mr. Trump would be a good President when he’s had as many divorces, wife’s, and family problem he’s had? Thank you for your answer Mr. Rubio.

How is this a debate? It’s despicable!!!

Original Post

Replies sorted oldest to newest

Trump has given these so called debates enough time to air
their stupid non questions. He need not go back. Kelly should
have her face slapped as well as the rest of the idiots that can't
 maneuver the participants through a series of questions and
answers. Liberals have always believed they have the power
to tell the people what to think and believe.
The only one I would show up for would be the one on one
from both parties.

 

I've actually watched most of the Debates and even though, at times, it seems to be a waste I have yet to hear the Democrats have to endure near as tough of questions as the Republicans seem to get from most any one of their Debates. 

It is bad when the questions tend to steer the candidates more toward a bar fight than a discussions about what issues actually face our leaders and what issues are likely to face our leaders.   Still it's possible that someone will ask a good question in the process and we actually learn something that we didn't know.

I will guarantee you one thing, almost to the certainty that I'd put money on it, that Hillary will never be ask or allow herself to be in a position to be ask, questions about her lying to the relatives of the Benghazi victims or her calling the same relatives liars for their accounts of what she said.  That may not be considered an issue for today's election however our future Commander in Chief's honesty and integrity should be and this woman is among the worst public figures I have ever seen for honesty and trustworthiness. 

It may be for naught anyway as her activities while Secretary of State quite likely will be found to be criminal.  It's funny with the press how even a whiff of impropriety among the Republicans is media fodder for weeks to months yet none of the major outlets seem remotely interested in Hillary lying to the relatives of the Benghazi dead nor questioning her email security and possible leaks of confidential and secret and top secret information.

gbrk posted:

I've actually watched most of the Debates and even though, at times, it seems to be a waste I have yet to hear the Democrats have to endure near as tough of questions as the Republicans seem to get from most any one of their Debates. 

It is bad when the questions tend to steer the candidates more toward a bar fight than a discussions about what issues actually face our leaders and what issues are likely to face our leaders.   Still it's possible that someone will ask a good question in the process and we actually learn something that we didn't know.

I will guarantee you one thing, almost to the certainty that I'd put money on it, that Hillary will never be ask or allow herself to be in a position to be ask, questions about her lying to the relatives of the Benghazi victims or her calling the same relatives liars for their accounts of what she said.  That may not be considered an issue for today's election however our future Commander in Chief's honesty and integrity should be and this woman is among the worst public figures I have ever seen for honesty and trustworthiness. 

It may be for naught anyway as her activities while Secretary of State quite likely will be found to be criminal.  It's funny with the press how even a whiff of impropriety among the Republicans is media fodder for weeks to months yet none of the major outlets seem remotely interested in Hillary lying to the relatives of the Benghazi dead nor questioning her email security and possible leaks of confidential and secret and top secret information.

___

The three national news networks plus CNN plus MSNBC all covered the latest information on the investigation into Clinton's  Clinton's use of her private e-mail server.  These media sources also cover Benghazi when there is something to cover, including the several Congressional hearings that thus far have found no criminal activity involved in that pseudo-scandal.  Too many of you conservatives seem to simply ignore such ubiquitous coverage.  Is that perhaps because of your excessive reliance on FOX News and other right wing sources?  

giftedamateur posted:

Hillary should be the first one they go after, then that INSANE socialist Bernie. That they don't go after them shows how far into the leftist muck we've sunk.

Another example of the lefty controlled media. HilLIARy should be big news, a criminal of her caliber trying to run for the highest office in the country, instead, the lefty media is painting it to be "poor downtrodden hillary, being picked on by those mean Republicans".

Contendahh posted:
gbrk posted:

I've actually watched most of the Debates and even though, at times, it seems to be a waste I have yet to hear the Democrats have to endure near as tough of questions as the Republicans seem to get from most any one of their Debates. 

It is bad when the questions tend to steer the candidates more toward a bar fight than a discussions about what issues actually face our leaders and what issues are likely to face our leaders.   Still it's possible that someone will ask a good question in the process and we actually learn something that we didn't know.

I will guarantee you one thing, almost to the certainty that I'd put money on it, that Hillary will never be ask or allow herself to be in a position to be ask, questions about her lying to the relatives of the Benghazi victims or her calling the same relatives liars for their accounts of what she said.  That may not be considered an issue for today's election however our future Commander in Chief's honesty and integrity should be and this woman is among the worst public figures I have ever seen for honesty and trustworthiness. 

It may be for naught anyway as her activities while Secretary of State quite likely will be found to be criminal.  It's funny with the press how even a whiff of impropriety among the Republicans is media fodder for weeks to months yet none of the major outlets seem remotely interested in Hillary lying to the relatives of the Benghazi dead nor questioning her email security and possible leaks of confidential and secret and top secret information.

___

The three national news networks plus CNN plus MSNBC all covered the latest information on the investigation into Clinton's  Clinton's use of her private e-mail server.  These media sources also cover Benghazi when there is something to cover, including the several Congressional hearings that thus far have found no criminal activity involved in that pseudo-scandal.  Too many of you conservatives seem to simply ignore such ubiquitous coverage.  Is that perhaps because of your excessive reliance on FOX News and other right wing sources?  

There is no way you can attempt to say the news networks covered Benghazi and investigated it to any degree.   What we don't know today should be newsworthy but isn't as none of the networks seem inclined to actually investigate as they did during Watergate to actually dig up information.  For instance no one today still knows what the President was doing during and immediately before the attack on Benghazi nor even where he was.  No one knows today who actually gave the "stand down order" to those who could have come to assist those under attack either from the Med or from Europe air stations.  No one knows why the "stand down" order was given and where it originated if not by the person that gave it.

Hillary has yet to answer questions regarding her statement that all relatives of the four dead Benghazi victims lied about what she told them immediately after the event as to what prompted the attack and why their relatives died.  All the relatives have been consistent in their statements that Hillary blamed the attack on a YouTube video and promised that the person that made the video would be punished.  Hillary, after it came out in released emails that she actually knew the real cause, before she talked to the relatives, that the attack was a terrorist attack on our compound, stated that it was the relatives that was lying about what was said.  While she didn't come out and say outright that they are liars she did state, when ask who was lying, "Well it isn't me" which certainly puts the blame on the relatives.  We still don't know, today, who ordered Susan Rice to go on the talk shows and blame the YouTube video even though she (Susan Rice) worked for Hillary and Hillary was on record and continued to blame the youtube video for the attack after the ceremony at the air base when the bodies was brought back.

We still don't know today just who made the security decisions regarding the compound even though that responsibility surely fell under Hillary's command as Secretary of State.  We still don't know how often Hillary communicated with the Ambassador after his assignment and up to and before the attack or who made the decisions about security at our compounds prior to the September 11th anniversary, a time that attacks should have been anticipated. 

Regarding the email server the FBI is still investigating  them but there are plenty of people who have said Classified material was found on the server.  Emails were not handed over willingly but only after a subpoena to get them was issued by a Judge/Court.  There has been very little to no investigations or questions into the fact that the servers were ordered wiped before they were actually handed over to the authorities. 

The list can go on but surely you are not trying to say Hillary has received near the scrutiny that Republicans received over Watergate or that David Petraeus received about his activities which was far less than Hillary.

If though you want to defend Hillary go ahead there are plenty of thinking and intelligent individuals on here for you to make your case before and if you can vote for her with a clear conscience then go ahead.  For my part I believe she should be in jail and has done far more than people who have forfeited their careers over far less.  All the purported illegal activities and security violations aside I don't think she's worthy to run account of her actions with the Benghazi attack and calling the relatives of the dead liars just for her own political expedience. 

She campaigns on the need to do all this for minorities and the middle class yet Democrats were in control, total control at the beginning of Obama's term so why wasn't things taken care of then?  They had total control and the Republicans could do nothing to fight them.   Even when the Republicans gained the house and control of the budget they didn't defund anything that the Democrats sought to do.  In fact name anything that the Republicans stopped Obama on?  The Democrats have had their way yet all the problems still exist? 

 

Add Reply

Post

Untitled Document
×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×