Presidential debate
 

I watched the debate for about 15 mins before I changed channels.

I was hoping to see what each candidate's plan would be to represent the best interests of Americans and the world.

Instead, it was an example of bickering children.

I would like to vote "None of the above" but I have to choose the lesser of two people.

What do you think ?

Mr. John Whitehead claims that there are " truths " that you will not hear from our presidential candidates; look for yourself!!
https://www.rutherford.org/publicati...ial_candidates

Unless you live in a Fox News world, you will realize that it was one bickering child and one grown-up.

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewir...e-online-polls

Don't get me started.

EOT.

When I got to

I read no further.

America is no police state.

Russia, Iran, N. Korea would fall in that category.

Have a good evening.

There are other candidates who were not allowed to participate in the debate because it is controlled by an organization which in turn is controlled by the two major political parties. Several decades ago, the debates were run by the League of Women Voters and there were actual debates. You can also write in anyone you choose.

Why? I don't.

Oh, and I hope you meant you have to choose between the better of two lesser people.

Do you mean you won't vote ?

Mr. Trump

The tax laws are specific.

If Trump pays no taxes because of those laws, I say he is following the law.

If voters do no agree with the government, they should elect folks who are honest.

Oh, did they have a debate? I didn't hear of one.

Think about it: two corporation-picked people, representing the Red and the Blue Brands of The Two-Party System, Inc., both of them using teleprompters.

As one person observed, "if you like candidate-X, then you think that candidate-X did pretty well and that candidate-Y screwed up."

The trouble is, you were supposed to think that. The actual show was carefully scripted from beginning to end.

However, there is a "wild card" brewing among the Millennials who today represent the majority of the actual voting population: the fact that there are four qualified names on the US Presidential ballot, not just these two.

The millennials have plenty of reason to be angry with what the "Baby Boomers" did to them. They can't go to a hospital. They can't get a college education. The list goes on and on and on. And so, they're realizing that "this is the kind of talk that got us into this mess, spoken by a generation of people who benefited from what we now can't have." They're not talking to one another by watching scripted shows on television: they're talking to each other, and they're talking to candidates, directly through the Internet.

"Dewey Defeats Truman" was a famous headline ... famous because it was wrong, and famous because it was the product of a t-e-l-e-p-h-o-n-e survey. In those days, most people didn't have telephones yet. The people who did, liked Dewey, but the people who didn't, elected a President. Today, "the Two-Party System, Inc." remains supremely confident of its grip on American power. But it is merely entertaining people who don't represent the majority of the voters anymore, through a medium that those (young) voters don't use. They bleat that "if you don't vote for Red or Blue, you're 'wasting' your vote." (Actually, they're hoping that you won't vote at all.) But that's how Baby Boomers think.

While both candidates were not entirely correct on the "Stop and Frisk" question of Constitutionality, I think "lesser of evils" is clear by a rather large margin.

All complex laws will have possible loopholes. Very rich people can pay very expensive lawyers to find them. Decent people, however rich, just pay their taxes as the rest of us have to. Just because something is not illegal doesn't mean it's right to do it: like cheating people out of their money or making racist remarks, both of which Trump indulges in.

The perspectives of other people are interesting to me. Perhaps the words of Mr. Jack Perry might be interesting to you:
https://www.lewrockwell.com/2016/09/...ident-clinton/

Try this link!!

Interestingly enough, that link is gone (even though the on-site Google Search still has record of it).

Anyhow ... the conventional wisdom is certainly that the executives of The Two-Party System, Inc. have appointed the person who inevitably must be the next POTUS, and, to make that a certainty, they appointed an a*shole to "run against her."

In carefully-written non-debates supported by teleprompters, the two non-candidates spout scripted lines for two hours or so.

And, in November, digital computers will "count (sic) the votes," with no audit-trail to support their conclusions. (Think about it: if you don't get a receipt at the burger-shop, you get a free burger. But, when you vote ...) :eek: Therefore, they are quite sure, the appointed and pre-ordained corporate outcome will dutifully be produced by a system that has been totally compromised.

But, there's a catch: a new generation of Americans who have suffered the consequences of thirty years' worth of misguided social-engineering experiments and trade abuses, but who do remember from their childhood when things were much different. These people don't watch television: their parents do. They don't read newspapers. They're accustomed to finding things out for themselves. They're not confined to the same hoary old box that is a warmed-up leftover from the Cold War, when short films like these were thought to reflect necessity.

I think that it is precisely when you decide that "nothing can ever change," that it does.

Nope. Not for me personally. But This

is. They both punch in at the same time clock.