televised debates are pointless

[MorkandMindy]

people kinda get an impression, of maybe what they want...

A person needs to determine the answer to the right question


Not just take what the PR experts told the candidates to say to gain the most supporters and avoid offending anyone

So what is / are the key questions?

 

[MorkandMindy]

The number one question is how do we avoid starting World War 3

and which candidate is less likely to start that war?

 

[Goonie]

The number one question is how do we avoid starting World War 3

and which candidate is less likely to start that war?

Well Trump is the candidate wondering why he can't press the button.

 

[tulc]

The number one question is how do we avoid starting World War 3

and which candidate is less likely to start that war?

why would it have to be our President that started it? We didn't start either of the last two and yet they happened.
tulc(just curious)

 

[essentialsaltes]

Debates may be pointless, but this next one is sure to be a trainwreck. Must see TV!

 

[Goonie]

Debates may be pointless, but this next one is sure to be a trainwreck. Must see TV!

One hopes. Hope they provide Trump plenty of hankies.

 

[Albion]

When did "How do we keep (us) from starting WW3?" become the #1 issue in this campaign?

 

[Uncle Siggy]

When did "How do we keep (us) from starting WW3?" become the #1 issue in this campaign?

Just another distraction to try to hide the real issues...

 

[MorkandMindy]

why would it have to be our President that started it? We didn't start either of the last two and yet they happened.
tulc(just curious)

WW1 was cooked up in Europe, WW2 it is a matter of whether you would define the US corporation Esso, responsible for starting most of it, as the US or not.

The present situation is the US has attempted to take yet another Russia friendly country, Syria, through backing rebels within the country and now threatens to bomb in Syria. Russia has reminded the US that there are Russians in Syria delivering aid and there are air defenses in place.

To try to tone things down a bit the US Army Chief of Staff Gen Mark Milley said, "I want to be clear to those who wish to do us harm. The United States military—despite all of our challenges, despite our [operational] tempo, despite everything we have been doing—we will stop you and we will beat you harder than you have ever been beaten before. Make no mistake about that."

 

[Albion]

WW1 was cooked up in Europe, WW2 it is a matter of whether you would define the US corporation Esso, responsible for starting most of it, as the US or not.

Whoa! What??

The present situation is the US has attempted to take yet another Russia friendly country, Syria

The US wants to annex Syria??

To try to tone things down a bit the US Army Chief of Staff Gen Mark Milley said, "I want to be clear to those who wish to do us harm. The United States military—despite all of our challenges, despite our [operational] tempo, despite everything we have been doing—we will stop you and we will beat you harder than you have ever been beaten before. Make no mistake about that."

However one looks at that, it neither amount to us wanting to "take" Syria for ourselves nor start WW3.

 

[MorkandMindy]

Just another distraction to try to hide the real issues...

I had expected the WW3 issue to be history as it is off on the other side of the planet, in an area the US doesn't have anything, etc. etc. but unfortunately it is continuing to be a concern.

From the people I've talked to all have wanted the US to get out of other people's business whether the person talking knows what is going on or believes the PR about how the military arrived to help but just happened to end up doing a lot of damage as a result of trying to protect the civilian population against insurgents who started arriving.

Both groups wanted the US to stay out so if this was a democracy then talk of WW3 would be a total waste of time. Unfortunately it looks like we will continue to do military brinkmanship until there is a change of leader to stop it.

Given Hillary's history I don't think she is the one to stop it.

 

[Albion]

I had expected the WW3 issue to be history as it is off on the other side of the planet, in an area the US doesn't have anything, etc. etc. but unfortunately it is continuing to be a concern.

It is? I agree that the Clinton campaign accused Trump of intending to start WW3 (along with being the anti-Christ, a tax evader, the reincarnation of Hitler, an admirer of Genghis Khan, and whatever other mud could be thrown at the wall in hopes some of it would stick), but that doesn't make the US starting WW3 anything that Americans are concerned will happen.

From the people I've talked to all have wanted the US to get out of other people's business

Now, that I can agree to, but neither is it the same thing as saying we're going to start WW3. And even if it were true, Clinton is the neo-con bomb thrower. Trump has been attacked for being an "isolationist!" Remember?

Given Hillary's history I don't think she is the one to stop it.

That's pretty clear, all right.

 

[MorkandMindy]

Whoa! What??


The US wants to annex Syria??


However one looks at that, it neither amount to us wanting to "take" Syria for ourselves nor start WW3.

I was ambiguous, I meant 'take from Russia' not 'take for ourselves' pretty much following the established pattern where we did not take Iraq for ourselves or Libya or Vietnam, just did a lot of damage and took them from their own people, Afghanistan from the Russians and their own people whoever they might be, and Syria was an ally of Russia so we just wanted to take them from Russia and if the past is a guide, destroy the state and leave the country in chaos.

Key issues?
The economy of course.
The biggest piece there is not our lack of manufacturing and military expenditure but the banks who have been robbing us blind.
To put it in perspective the Iraq and Afghanistan wars will in the end total a mere 3,000 billion dollars give or take.
The bank bailouts of 2008/9 totalled taking all the diverse schemes into account something like 9,000 billion most likely, some of the debt could yet prove good but it is unlikely at this point.

As Bernie Sanders pointed out the problem has not been fixed and the next tab is going to be a lot bigger.

Again putting it into perspective the next tab is likely to be around 19,000 billion, whereas our trade deficit is only 500 billion a year, about a quarter as much.

 

[Albion]

I was ambiguous, I meant 'take from Russia' not 'take for ourselves'

Um, well that is a different matter, although I don't see any evidence that the US ever wanted to take Syria in any way for anybody.

To put it in perspective the Iraq and Afghanistan wars will in the end total a mere 3,000 billion dollars give or take.
The bank bailouts of 2008/9 totalled taking all the diverse schemes into account something like 9,000 billion most likely, some of the debt could yet prove good but it is unlikely at this point.

As Bernie Sanders pointed out the problem has not been fixed and the next tab is going to be a lot bigger.

It would about double the national debt if his domestic proposals were to be adopted by whoever calls the shots in the upcoming administration. Are you concerned about this ballooning of the national debt?

 

[MorkandMindy]

I was ambiguous again. Hillary Clinton is the one with a Super PAC she works for and has been paid by Goldman Sachs. She is expected to help rob the country big time.

The problem here is the election is likely to be decided by minorities and women whom Trump has offended and Hillary will take that as carte blanche to take more money and get even more ridiculously rich.

 

[iluvatar5150]

Generally, I agree that they're pointless. But this time around they're providing ample opportunity for Trump to really show us who he is and torpedo his chances at winning. So, at least in this election, I think they're doing us all a wonderful service.

 

[Albion]

I was ambiguous again. Hillary Clinton is the one with a Super PAC she works for and has been paid by Goldman Sachs. She is expected to help rob the country big time.

That's likely, yes..

The problem here is the election is likely to be decided by minorities and women whom Trump has offended and Hillary will take that as carte blanche to take more money and get even more ridiculously rich.

My guess is that she will need no excuses and will offer none. She will simply do what she wants. If Obama is able to own the FBI, the Justice Department, the Attorney General, etc. while ignoring Congress, she's probably going to just go on soliciting and accepting bribes, ruling by edict like Obama was able to do, and--quite likely--farm out the duties of the presidency to Bill or someone else. She certainly won't bother with the usual ribbon-cutting stuff, and her health would most likely not permit it anyway.

 

[MorkandMindy]

Yes, there is a precedent for that so I'm confident we will all be robbed big time.

 

[Robban]

WW1 was cooked up in Europe, WW2 it is a matter of whether you would define the US corporation Esso, responsible for starting most of it, as the US or not.

The present situation is the US has attempted to take yet another Russia friendly country, Syria, through backing rebels within the country and now threatens to bomb in Syria. Russia has reminded the US that there are Russians in Syria delivering aid and there are air defenses in place.

To try to tone things down a bit the US Army Chief of Staff Gen Mark Milley said, "I want to be clear to those who wish to do us harm. The United States military—despite all of our challenges, despite our [operational] tempo, despite everything we have been doing—we will stop you and we will beat you harder than you have ever been beaten before. Make no mistake about that."

Yeah,
Apparently he has never heard;
"Stor i orden, liten på jorden."
(Big in words, little on earth).