It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


On The Lack Of Substance From Either Candidate In The First(Sep 26, 2016) Debate

page: 1

log in


posted on Sep, 27 2016 @ 03:07 AM
Ninety minutes of debate, between Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton. I took notes. I wanted to try and catch any substance to the two candidates' arguments and proposals, should there be any. Neither presented much that actually presented or explained policies that they support or intend to implement. Trump was his bombastic self, Hillary the smooth, oily machine she has always been. Being the machine she is, I thought she might've spanked him had she had more substance to her arguments. Her tendency to empty platitudes was not deviated from though, so that opportunity was not taken advantage of.

There were of course a few notable exceptions. Trump said he wanted to repatriate businesses by cutting taxes for business and the wealthy and deregulate business, Clinton said she would tax the rich but streamline business regulations and that that would repatriate businesses. Trump hinted at import duties for foreign goods. These are vague statements, but that's about all there is. I think Trump said he would cut the tax rate to 15% for businesses and corporations, someone please correct me if I'm wrong. Anyhow, a little vague quasi-substantive argumentation there. Hillary also said mandatory minimums suck and that diversion programs are great, so those were also semi-substantive types of airy feel-good statements.

Where there was substance, it was mostly of the pretty scary brand for a Libertarian type such as myself. Both adopted the new meme for removing gun rights for anyone on the no-fly list: "Too dangerous to fly, too dangerous to buy." Trump said if he was president they would try to be nice about it. Trump said he supports stop and frisk. Hillary took a position against, though I think it could be argued that her policy record reflects a favorable view of that policy. She was certainly very clear about her desire to restrict gun rights in general, mostly with justifications of a 'war on terror.' Trump claimed he only wanted to take guns from the 'bad people.' Both were substantive enough then with these positions about their desire to curtail constitutional freedoms, it should be noted.

Looking back over my notes, these are the only points of substance I could find that were argued. There was plenty of back and forth he sucks she sucks she spent more money you said it was okay for Russia to hack us you don't know Russia hacked us gotta crack down on the web to stop terror need law and order hes a birther shes a birther blah blah blah, etc., etc., ad nauseum. I'm not saying don't watch it. You should all watch this. Watch these two throw poop at each other for ninety minutes, hoping that something will stick. It's a sad though pertinent commentary on the pathetic state of our two party 'system.'

Gary Johnson for president!
edit on Wed Oct 5 2016 by DontTreadOnMe because: vid replace per OP request...original removed by YT

edit on Wed Oct 5 2016 by DontTreadOnMe because: ooops

posted on Sep, 27 2016 @ 03:23 AM
I dislike Gary Johnson

But st this point he is the only option IMHO we have.

He's the one candidate , though I might not always agree with, that would not utterly destroy this us, or worsen our foreign policy issues...

That being said, maybe it's time we elected someone like Hillary or Trump and burn this whole thing to the ground.

A wake up call is in order I feel

posted on Sep, 27 2016 @ 03:28 AM
a reply to: ManBehindTheMask

When the other options are a literal douche and turd then Gary Johnson going to shine

posted on Sep, 27 2016 @ 03:55 AM
Gary Johnson sucks too. He may be the Libertarian party candidate, but he is no libertarian.

There are no good choices here. I agree with the above, burn it all.

posted on Sep, 27 2016 @ 04:30 AM
a reply to: watchitburn

I'll take him over Trump or Clinton any day. Could he be better? Sure. At least his positions are pretty straightforward.

posted on Sep, 27 2016 @ 04:42 AM
a reply to: TheBadCabbie

Yeah, controlled opposition.

posted on Sep, 27 2016 @ 05:21 AM
What about Rand Paul, he skirts the line between a real working person and a politician.

posted on Sep, 27 2016 @ 06:05 AM
When you think about it, the calibre of candidates hoping to be the next president of the US displays one convincing fact...the election is not about putting the right candidate in the White House for the people, but about putting the one 'opted for' by those who dictate the rolling out of the global corporate agenda. It is nothing but the election of a 'puppet', who will continue, as nothing more than a member of a higher management team, to roll out corporate globalism.

This election has nothing whatsoever to do with the American people, they are just needed for the ritual act of voting, to continue the illusion that they have a voice and a choice in the matter.

You all know this. You all know that your action in voting is nothing more than an empty gesture. Hilary Clinton will be, is going to be, the next president, because she is the one opted for. Donald Trump is nothing more than a distraction, a red herring. Trump is such a bad candidate that as a candidate he is nothing but a lampoon of the election itself. So bad is he presented as a candidate for the highest publicly-known office, that the electorate are so easily manipulated and swayed towards Clinton, regardless of her own public misdemeanour's.

The globalists cannot hijack the democratic process fully just to put their person in office, they have to do it through subtle social and psychological stimulus, and massage the public's perception (via the media) so they can point it in the alignment they want. They don't have to be on-the-nail, they just need to have the perception directed, knowing that people will vote out of their own prejudices, and it is the people's prejudice that is always targeted.

No sane, reasonable person would opt for either candidate, both fall far short of the socially expected calibre for the office of president. Politics is only ever about gaining majority, it is never about encompassing the whole. Neither candidate is interested in the whole of American society, they are only interested in achieving some majority of it, one that will take either one of them into office. Of course, this applies to politics all around the world, not just America.

The only ones who will win at the next presidential election, are those who have repeatedly won at past elections, and they are the globalists. It's not 'your' future they are securing, it is 'their's', you are just dragged along by default.

posted on Sep, 27 2016 @ 10:03 AM
lackluster, I'd say. Hillary, no matter how hard she tries suffers through with an ambiance of deceit, or stretching the truth till it screams.

Trump..... well he is willing to get in the ring and duke it out. He is believable, and it seems the claims against him are like water on a ducks back.

I believe this was only a preliminary debate with only low power dirt. I think the battle will start in earnest on the second debate. As I'v said, this is the start, they don't want to run out of steam only in the first or second debate.
As a side note, I was surprised Hillary didn't have health flair-ups.

posted on Sep, 27 2016 @ 10:42 AM

What about Rand Paul, he skirts the line between a real working person and a politician.

I would have actually preferred him over Trump as the GOP candidate. However, he has his own baggage too. Basically, he's just too religious right to have a snowball's chance in hell. I still have no idea how he couldn't shine in the debates. In front of Congress, Paul is impressive.... He's actually more Libertarian than Johnson in many ways, LOL....
edit on 27-9-2016 by Gazrok because: (no reason given)

posted on Sep, 27 2016 @ 11:01 AM

originally posted by: avgguy
What about Rand Paul, he skirts the line between a real working person and a politician.

You mean the guy who defended Obama's drone strikes?

The guy who supports the use of drone strikes on US soil?

That guy?

posted on Sep, 28 2016 @ 06:19 PM
a reply to: MongolianPaellaFish

Yeah, the drone statement...I like him though. He was certainly the sanest guy in right field by far. Very Libertarian-ish. On the other hand, he's not his father.

posted on Sep, 30 2016 @ 08:14 PM

originally posted by: Plotus

I believe this was only a preliminary debate with only low power dirt. I think the battle will start in earnest on the second debate. As I'v said, this is the start, they don't want to run out of steam only in the first or second debate.

..and that's my point. This was a mud slinging contest, nothing more. Neither one said anything like: "Okay here's my plan. Here's what I'd like to accomplish as president and here's how I'll do it." No other issues were discussed aside from those pesky few freedoms that we Americans still enjoy that must be curtailed when either one is elected. I considered it to be a pretty ridiculous affair.

new topics

top topics


log in