I am sorry but I have to 'correct the record'. Yes I am going to appropriate that term. Trump was not in favor of the war in Iraq. He gave a hedge answer to Howard Stern and in subsequent interviews aired before the invasion he was against it.

EVEN if he was in favor of it (which he wasn't). He was not a public official and Hillary was a public official. She voted for it. She voted for authorization of force in Iraq. She as an elected official signed off and let Bush go on his crusade. NOT Trump.

try asking trump supporters to answer honestly or objectively about how many African Americans, Latinos or as trump would call them, "The African Americans, The Hispanics, The Latinos, feel about their vote. Ask how female college voters feel, did they change their mind tonight? Did Hillary "lose" so badly that Trump grew his base, and regained all his defectors...

I mean Hillary is asking people to equate a hedge answer with Howard Stern to a PUBLIC vote in the U.S. Senate for authorization of force. It's not comparable. It's just not comparable folks.

Her ties to the rebels in Syria plus the fact that she pushed for force against the Syrian government is the third. And yes I'm aware that she isn't solely responsible, but she could have said no. She said yes.

"I refuse to beleive we cannot come up with a pathway to a NHS."
http://gifsec.com/wp-content/uploads/GIF/2014/10/Laughing-GIF_1.gif?gs=a
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hHRNSeuvzlM

Do you all think that Brain will 'mute' anyone who disagrees with him or says Trump won this debate? I guess he is trying to create an echo chamber.

Where to begin with that? You wanna talk about a no-win topic to have an opinion on as a politician. If you support attacking ISIS, thats great, fuck em. If you support Assad, you support Russia. If you support the Rebels you might be also supporting ISIS its really hard to say at this point.

Her plans to arm Kurdish rebels is just a classic addition to the Military Industrial complex we have seen the last 116 years in America. She isnt a referendum on American Militarism. I have to ask Hannibal... are you American?

And please keep in mind, this is one of the few issues where both candidates are wrong. We really shouldnt be arming the kurds because they might just turn around and start attacking Turkey instead. We probably ought not to pick a side in Assad vs Rebels because Russia is already involved and ISIS is probably too. That has no win, no matter what side.

It must be shocking to imagine I can vote for a president who I disagree on some things with...

I mean, I'm favoring Trump this election, but I still think single-payer healthcare makes sense. Unfortunately, the candidate who quasi-supports it is awful.

@Chaqa: Clinton will put a judicial activist on the Supreme Court. Kiss the 2nd Amendment good bye.

@TrPrado, I am just telling you what I want to see my country become. No need to laugh about it. I dont make a lot of money, and I cant afford Health Insurance. I live in a state that doesnt offer vouchers either. When I go to file taxes, they give me an exemption code and tell me I dont have to have health insurance.

Surely that ought to be reformed so I would be able to have health insurance. So Obamacare hasnt really helped me at all. That being said, sometimes, there are things that help people besides yourself. Its important to remember there are people out there more in need.

@Chaqa besides the second amendment what policies do you like of Trumps.

ND, literally *nobody* is repealing the Second Amendment. Ever.

@brainbomb

muting? really? you're not going to understand some of our comments then... and it's a little immature.

Secondly

"@Yanik, were one of the wealthiest mightiest powers in the world with military bases on every continent. We have enough nukes to destroy every planet in the solar system. I refuse to beleive we cannot come up with a pathway to a NHS."

Our military budget is 603 billion $

Britain's NHS is 103 billion £ (115.28 billion USD)

318.9 million people in USA/ 64.1 million people in Britain = 4.975

115.28 billion USD X 4.9751 = 573.518 BILLION USD

While it's true Britain has a 33% poverty rate compared to our 19%, claims work on a threshold level, and we have 45 million people in poverty over twice that of there 19.3 million. PLUS Britain's poverty rate already FACTORED IN NHS! that means that our claims would be significantly higher - the exact number is up for debate, but all of them have an increase, the lowest numbers from liberal economists at 8% from what i remember, but that was last year i'll double check now. so 8% for last year assuming that's held 573.518X.08=45.88

thus the adjusted claims would be 619.398

IN CONCLUSION: If we could make NHS here as efficient as it is in britain at 573 Bil. USD, we'd have to cut our military down by 95%, which will have a huge social consequence worldwide, weaken national security, and destroy one of the greatest social programs in the US.

but at least we'd have a shaky socialized system. that is IF www can get it to work as well, which is a preposterous claim even for many liberal economists who factor in poverty rates.

conclusion: NHS is currently not viable in the USA, ESPECIALLY when a trite argument like "lower the military" comes into play.

next question please

@TrPrado

I'm sorry bro I love you but you my policy on economics, and this just isn't functional in our current economic state

@Bo: That is fairly obvious, but through a Supreme Court stacked with judicial activists they can render the second amendment virtually obsolete. You don't have to 'repel' something to 'end' something. I hope that makes sense to you.

following up on the poverty rates' comparators and how the transition would work, I can't find new numbers, because all I'm finding is a bunch of pro socialism stuff and it doesn't source any data or statistics

I'm aware, James, and I'm pretty sure you took my post the wrong way ;)

"but through a Supreme Court stacked with judicial activists"
"stacked"
It's one seat. And there wouldn't be 5 people there (including the one seat filled by Clinton) jumping to support that.

we CANNOT @TrPrado

i misread that i apologize beloved one

51% of debate watchers claim Hillary won.
35% claim Trump won.
The rest thought it was a draw. (CNN)

CNN is literally the only poll saying Hillary won.

@ND ... gun rights in this country are alive and well and always will be so long as the NRA fearmongers as it currently does. I promise you that your rights aren't going anywhere no matter who is elected president or who sits on the Supreme Court. They are preparing to take on a case that I am quite interested in. A lower court already ruled against the state of Illinois not too long ago when they tried to invalidate Indiana licenses in Chicago. That is a sign that there is a clear line drawn between improving public safety and dissolving public liberty and that federal judges know where it is at. If the Supreme Court upholds that ruling, which I personally believe it will in what ought to be a fairly easy decision, then that is a sign moving forward that our right to carry with the proper licensing is in no way threatened at all.

@brainbomb

even FOX:

Hillary Clinton 50.86% (47,039 votes)
Donald Trump 49.14% (45,450 votes)

CNN lol. Let's see what the post-debate polls say. You know, actual scientific polls?

"CNN is literally the only poll saying Hillary won."

Reminds me of this.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m-Z9lTUu3e8

@Bo: Well, I hope you are right.

@ND

yeah it's a LITTLE too early for reliable results

we'll see the next few days

@brainbomb

what do you say about the NHS statistics though?

I am right, ND. I just got my gun license not long ago and it took me all of ten minutes and then a quick trip to the local PD to get fingerprinted and a background check. It's fucking easy. Why do you think all the drug cartels and terrorists buy American weapons? Because they're fucking easy to get. They're easy to get for citizens too, and they will be for a really, really long time. Yall need to chill.