Presidential Slugfest 2016 - Debate Watch Party!

[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.

Originally Posted by DapperButch

Fact checking stuff:

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-me...iously-attack/

[DapperButch]

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.

Yes.

I took notice of this article after I read your post because I didn't recall her being as harsh as you described. I was aware that i was in grad school over that time period so I knew that I had missed a lot of the details.

[BullDog]

The article cited by Dapper was looking specifically at the allegations made by Trump at the debate. That was its purpose and it explained what it meant by mostly false, which doesn't lead to a reasonable interpretation of "viscous."

Viscous is an extremely strong word to use to accuse someone of something.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[*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

[Lyte]

lol Viscous viciousness??

Originally Posted by *Anya*

I was throughly confused.

Vicious Means something very different than viscous.

Must have been autocorrect.

[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]

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.

[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.

[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]

"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"

[C0LLETTE]

Originally Posted by 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.

Most is more than less. Though sometimes less is more. But most is not necessarily more than more However sometimes more is most which begs the question: is less more or less than lesser when lesser is still more than most.Fewer rats is still more than no rats but no rats is still less than more rats. It's a vicious circle.

[MsTinkerbelly]

Round 3 is nearly ready to start.

Bring it!!

[Lyte]

Already got a bowl of popcorn and hard rootbeer!! Who's coming over?!

Originally Posted by MsTinkerbelly

Round 3 is nearly ready to start.

Bring it!!

[BullDog]

Wallace seems like he wants a substantive, serious debate on the issues. Good sign. We'll see if it lasts!