And then God said, let there be substance

nitro

nitro

Given that the second debate is a format where the candidates take question directly from an audience, this debate should be orders of magnitude more important and qualitative than the first.

As I stated elsewhere, I am hoping that some subset of these issues are addressed, and the specific proposals for their resolution within the policies of the candidate:

  • Income Inequality
  • Bridging the chasm between the two parties in Washington
  • Lobbying on K-street
  • Health Care
  • What is a human right from the standpoint of US policy
  • Gun control
  • The colossal debt
  • Raising GDP
  • Global Warming
  • Protecting Intellectual Property from hacking
  • Citizens United
  • Opinion on Unions: Private vs Public
  • Community Policing
  • Astronomical Higher Education costs
  • Crumbling Infrastructure
  • A Tax code no one understands which is horribly unfair
  • Trade: TPP, NAFTA, etc
  • Stopping inversions
  • Criminal Justice reform
  • Human Trafficking
  • Immigration
  • Inflation/Deflation/Stagflation - The FED as it relates to world problems
  • Terrorism
  • Dumbing down of K-12
  • Syria
  • China
  • Israel
  • North Korea
  • Russia
  • Paid leave
  • Budget for a crumbling military
  • Veteran well being
  • Equal pay for equal work
  • Right to choose
  • Choice for Supreme Court justice
  • LGBT rights
  • NATO, can we afford it
  • Nuclear weapons proliferation
  • Nation building and exporting Democracy
  • etc, etc, etc...
 
I have always wanted to ask this question to a candidate:

To Clinton and Trump. With follow-up from the moderator if the answer is unsatisfactory:
  • What proposal would you make if, a candidate makes a promise during his/her run for the presidency, and then does a 180 if elected. Should they be impeached for lying?
  • Follow up. Which of your policies would you never go back on, and which ones are more iffy?
 
Question:

  • As a presidential candidate, is it constructive just to point out problems in a system without offering solutions for its replacement?
 
nitro said:
Question:

  • As a presidential candidate, is it constructive just to point out problems in a system without offering solutions for its replacement?
More...
It is if the solutions being offered by the opposition are going to exacerbate the problems. If said solutions have been shown to be abject failures over several decades, then yes.
 
if the problem is waste... the answer is yes.
if the problem is giving money away to make support from a father unnecessary yes.
if the problem is that Obamacare is being dismantled in the market place right now and leaving people far worse options than they had before ..

if supporting the muslim brotherhood
if giving arms to terrorists which caused problems in libya and created isis
if its govt taxes and regulation are causes business to close and leave with jobs
if its the federal govt telling states how to do things and not giving them money
giving billions and nukes to iran
to provoking putin in putting anti aircraft systems in syria...

Bad governance has wrecked so many good things the last 20 years. the list is almost endless.

just make govt smaller lower our taxes and let our freedom increase.
 
Last edited:
Economic issues Trump, Clinton should discuss at debate, but probably won't

Everett Rosenfeld | @Ev_Rosenfeld
1 Hour AgoCNBC.com
COMMENTSJoin the Discussion

With two more presidential debates and one all-important month to go, Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton are likely to face a battery of questions during the debate on Sunday night about their policies and their fitness for leadership.

Yet some questions are more relevant than others. The president of the United States is given appellations like the leader of the free world, but his or her authority is hardly absolute. If Barack Obama's time in the White House has proven anything it's that a president's power to shape the world is stymied not just by Congress, but also by the realities of a complex and multi-polar international system.

One persistent question is just how much a president actually affects the U.S. economy. The adage is that "it's the economy" upon which voters base their decisions — and recent data still backs that up — but there's considerable evidence that a president is relatively powerless on that front.


103973542-GettyImages-610601622.530x298.jpg

Getty Images
Patrons fill the Capitol Lounge two blocks from the U.S. Captiol to watch the first presidential debate between Republican candidate Donald Trump and Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton September 26, 2016 in Washington, DC.

President Barack Obama obviously disagrees with that contention, writing for The Economist this week about his economic accomplishments and advice for the next president.

"I enacted a larger and more front-loaded fiscal stimulus than even President Roosevelt's New Deal and oversaw the most comprehensive rewriting of the rules of the financial system since the 1930s, as well as reforming health care and introducing new rules cutting emissions from vehicles and power plants," Obama wrote.

"The results are clear: a more durable, growing economy; 15m new private-sector jobs since early 2010; rising wages, falling poverty, and the beginnings of a reversal in inequality; 20m more Americans with health insurance, while health-care costs grow at the slowest rate in 50 years; annual deficits cut by nearly three-quarters; and declining carbon emissions," he added....

http://www.cnbc.com/2016/10/07/econ...ould-discuss-at-debate-but-probably-wont.html
 
After the released audio, Trump might just implode and not even show up on Sunday. I am actually hoping he shows, as I am predicting this debate will benefit all who watch it to see how either candidate perceives the issues and what can be done to improve the situation on countless important issues facing this nation.

If it is just Clinton up there, she won't have the same level of intensity and forcefulness in her responses, imo.
 
nitro said:
I have always wanted to ask this question to a candidate:

To Clinton and Trump. With follow-up from the moderator if the answer is unsatisfactory:
  • What proposal would you make if, a candidate makes a promise during his/her run for the presidency, and then does a 180 if elected. Should they be impeached for lying?
  • Follow up. Which of your policies would you never go back on, and which ones are more iffy?
More...

let me guess, these questions won't be asked.
 
Clinton made a grave mistake when she called many of Trumps supporters "deplorable". I understand why she did it. Here is what I am trying to say:

Imo, a true leader, a visionary leader, knows how to pull people in, regardless if they disagree with them or not. Clinton should ask herself, what has caused Trumps supporters to reach for what appears to her as desperate measures? Only when you walk in another persons shoes can you really understand them.

I realize this is the longshots of longshots, but imo Clinton should do something crazy. She should reach out to all Trumps supporters. Make an effort, open the door. How? I don't know, that is what these people are supposed to be good at?

If Clinton didn't need the Bernie supporters, would she have seen how out of touch she is? Why doesn't that extend to Trump supporters? Why not listen to Trump supporters, and see if there is some part of her policy that she can change to appease some of their concerns? Is it really winner take all? If it were me, I would promise they could choose one of two supreme court justices. That seems crazy to a democrat, but sometimes the long way is the short way. How about saying that Trump has made her a better candidate, and then list where she has grown? Is that heresy?

I know this risks coming across as being weak, but many will see it as a gesture to reach out. Have faith that they it will be seen as a humble gesture.

Someone with the radically different skills and talents needs to build a bridge that lets people know that the American people have her ear.
 
Last edited:
I fear the debate tonight will be about other people's sex life. What a waste if that is the depth that it is taken to. No question in my mind that the first question will be about Trumps criminal behavior toward women, which will then be turned around about Bill Clinton's sex life. Ok no problem, but please, for Gods sake, focus on the other issues facing this nation ASAP in the debate.

I am not saying this is a trivial issue - I am saying this is one issue of many!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top