Who said it during the first debate? Maybe not who you think

Welcome to a special edition of “Whose Line Is It Anyway?” — where, instead of entertaining you with improv comedy, we ask if it was the GOP candidate for president or the Democrat who made these statements in their first debate.

(We apologize in advance for not being as funny as the TV show.)

Let’s begin with a statement about trade and taxes. Was it Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton who said the following?

“(I)f you think you’re going to make your air conditioners or your cars or your cookies or whatever you make and bring them into our country without a tax, you’re wrong.”

While the GOP has traditionally sought lower trade barriers, the answer here is: Trump.

clinton-trump

Now let’s move to a statement made in the age-old tug-of-war between spending money on the military or domestic needs — the “guns or butter” question. Who said it?

“(W)e’ve spent $6 trillion in the Middle East … we could have rebuilt our country twice. And it’s really a shame. … (W)e have a country that needs new roads, new tunnels, new bridges, new airports, new schools, new hospitals.”

Talking down the state of our infrastructure, and talking up the need to pour trillions of dollars into new projects, is typically Democratic ground. But the answer here is: Trump.

Next, who was it who said the following about limiting access to guns?

“And we finally need to pass a prohibition on anyone who’s on the terrorist watch list from being able to buy a gun in our country. If you’re too dangerous to fly, you are too dangerous to buy a gun.”

Based on the way the gun-control debate has gone in this country, you may have guessed Clinton. And you’d be right! But as a bonus, who was it who said this:

“I think we have to look very strongly at (banning gun sales to people on) no-fly lists … when people are on there, even if they shouldn’t be on there, we’ll help them, we’ll help them legally, we’ll help them get off.”

Clinton again? Nope: Trump. Now, how about this one:

“When it comes to gun rights — or, for that matter, property rights or religious freedom — I will make sure to appoint Supreme Court justices who uphold the Constitution.”

Trick question! Neither of them said anything remotely like that.

We’ll now close with a pair of statements, one by each candidate. Who said which?

“Are we going to lead the world with strength and in accordance with our values? … I intend to be a leader of our country that people can count on, both here at home and around the world, to make decisions that will further peace and prosperity, but also stand up to bullies, whether they’re abroad or at home.”

And now: “I want to help all of our allies, but we are losing billions and billions of dollars. We cannot be the policemen of the world. We cannot protect countries all over the world.”

If you had the Democrat arguing for an active foreign policy based on American values, and the Republican for limits on U.S. involvement overseas, congratulations: You would have been laughed at four years ago. And eight years ago. And basically the past few decades.

Of course, we could have used other statements that fit more with the usual positions taken by each party’s candidate. But if you are siding with “your side’s” person thinking you’ll get what “your side” usually delivers, you might want to think twice.

Reader Comments 0

242 comments
ERA1977
ERA1977

I am voting for the one I think is sane.  Mental illness is a major problem in this country and we do not need it in the White House.

Bruno2
Bruno2

@Eye wonder @Bruno2 Show me once where I mentioned an "intelligent designer".  I haven't.  The fact that you and the other Libs here keep claiming I did only shows how unintelligent you are.  Reread my note to Aquagirl.  I am working within the framework of ex nihilo, the same as the Big Bangers and Evolutionists.  I'm simply pointing out the gaping holes in those theories.

P.S. Good luck reading or understanding "The Road To Reality".  It's way over your head.

P.P.S. I humbly accept the MPPP award.

Bruno2
Bruno2

@Eye wonder @Bruno2 Sorry that your imagination is limited by what you've read and heard before.  You have a lot of company here on the blog.

Eye wonder
Eye wonder

@Bruno2

If you'd read the book, Brun, you'd know that the author devotes the first 300 or so pages to explaining the mathematical concepts necessary to understand the remainder of the book. And if you weren't in the running for the AJC's annual MPPP* (I haven't seen the tally but I gotta believe you have a commanding lead), you'd also know that one doesn't necessarily need to be a Harvey Mudd-trained super scientist to understand it!


As to the topic at hand, do you not see that your argument couldn't be any weaker? Essentially you are saying that gaps or inconsistencies in the science mean they are necessarily explained or reconciled by an 'intelligent designer.' What you fail to realize is that the very existence of an 'intelligent designer' is itself an article of faith for which ZERO empirical evidence exists as to his, her or its actual existence.  


* Most Pompous Poster Prize

Eye wonder
Eye wonder

@Bruno2 @Eye wonder

Now you're just being deliberately obtuse. Your whole argument is predicated on 'universal intelligence.' That's a non-believer's way of reconciling their skepticism of the existence of the very thing they claim to believe in with millenia of genetic coding that predisposes humans to believe (or to want to believe) in 'god.'

MarkVV
MarkVV

@Bruno2 How could an ordinary mortal understand such mysterious things?

SGTGrit
SGTGrit

I began my actual voter experience back in the 60's sitting down voting on a foot locker in the troop compartment of a Navy class ship called an APA bouncing around on the ocean. Those of us who've followed politics from the 60's, 70's until today have seen quite a transformation in American culture. What was once condemned is now celebrated and what was once celebrated is now condemned. I guess it really all began during the sexual revolution in the 60's and the birth of the anti-war hippie movement. It was the opportunity then that the hard left in this country saw as the growing sub-culture vehicle to force their agenda into American politics. The left knew that forming a third party political movement would take considerable time with a high chance of ultimate failure. The American political party fabric was woven into existence by a two party system that has been in place for most of our history and remains so today. The left began a strategy to infiltrate the Democrat party, which was perceived as the party of the working class and that strategy truly came into fruition during the Obama presidency. The left over time finally found their puppet president and got him elected. Coolness and political correctness charactorizes the culture of his presidency, which has succeeded in cowering his political opposition in the Republican party. We hear cute little labels implanted in the minds and tongues of the lefts rank and file Democrats to disparage conservative voters like xenophobic, homophobic, or misogynist all designed to intimidate those who're American traditionalists. The lefts hope is to marginalize these conservative traditionalists and make them ever so smaller in the country. They hope that the millennial generation and unbrideled immigration will change the complection of the electorate. Now along comes Trump. An unorthodox unpolished non-traditional political nominee for president of the United States. He thumbs his nose at political correctness and has assumed the identity of a populist and a committed nationalist. He's drawn enthusiastic crowds at his speeches and operating within his own skin unscripted takes no prisoners. He if genuine, and I once a skeptic now believe he is genuine could be the biggest surprise in American politics since Ronald Reagan. Don't unfasten your seat belts yet folks.

Bruno2
Bruno2

@SGTGrit One thing I've come to accept, SGT, is that things never stay the same, that we can't hold on to the past.  Although you are older than me, I came from a world similar to yours, a world in which self-sufficiency was the norm, a world in which character and a strong work ethic paid off.

Sadly, that world is slipping away.  The new generation coming up is lazy and wants socialism.  They want to be rewarded for just showing up.  And, not surprisingly, there are a whole bunch of politicians out there who are eager to cater to their feckless desires.

Such a mindset is predicated upon feeling like a victim, feeling like it's "unfair" that some folks are more successful than others.  For an example of that type of thinking, look no further than the musings of Mark VV, who thinks hourly workers should be paid the same as CEOs.  Trump is trying to fight that negative mindset, and surprisingly is doing pretty well.  In the end, however, I'm expecting victimhood and laziness to win the day.  Self-pity is too addicting for folks to give up, in spite of its toxicity.

SGTGrit
SGTGrit

@Bruno2 @SGTGrit 

Bruno,

You are correct about things not remaining the same. That has been true in our country since inception and true throughout world history. Innovation, advanced technologies, advancements in medicine are but a few things that have been instruments of change. What has, however, been largely unique to our country because of how we were founded as a nation has been a sense of patriotism and a strong will to succeed. This sense exists under the surface and mostly only appears in time of national crises. I can site many examples but I know you already know what I'm talking about.

We moved to Florida a little over one year ago. We live on a corner lot of two cul-de-sacs. Our neighbors include Whites, Blacks, Hispanics, a Muslim family, Asian, mixed like my family, I'm White and my wife's Asian. Can't get much more racially diverse. What we have in common is everyone has succeeded in America and have earned the American dream themselves. Now I'm not saying this harmonious racially diverse neighborhood that I reside in is prevalent throughout America but it has to exist in many other locations. I've noticed that upward mobile Black's for example are growing in significant numbers and many reject the old line of voting for Democrats because as Blacks they're obligated to do so. 


Now I'm not saying that this is a huge shift that will tip the scale back to a more traditionalist American culture but being the optimist that I am, I see something that could portend change.

I think this election could provide a harbinger of any shift in voter attitude. Will we see apathy, which would probably favor a Clinton election or will we see a fired America fed up with the status quo and failures of big government.


Bruno2
Bruno2

@SGTGrit @Bruno2 Thanks for the thoughtful, personal response.  I'm currently dating a woman from Laos and am thinking about popping the question soon.  Reporter mentioned that he is married to a Latina lady (if I'm correct), and td next door at Bookman's--a Con--also mentioned that he is married to an Asian woman.

The reason I am focusing on the actual diversity which exists within the Cons who post on this blog is in response to the ugly charges of racism that the Libs like to throw around.  Ditto for the anti-Science charges.  As I've hopefully demonstrated, my command of Science far exceeds that of any of the Libs here.

Eye wonder
Eye wonder

@Bruno2

That's a great song. The way Grisman's mandolin and Garcia's guitar feed (and feed off of) each other is a treat.

MarkVV
MarkVV

Trying to be very succinct, because I have no intention to spend the night at the computer, it appears in this discussion of evolution that those opposed to the Theory of evolution have really only two types of argument: “It cannot happen that way,” or “you do not have enough evidence that it happened that way.” But they do not seem to be capable of presenting any reliable scientific evidence that it happened differently.

I am sure there are gaps in the theory of evolution that need more or better evidence. But until somebody comes with a different scientific explanation supported by extensive evidence, Theory of evolution beats Creationism, Intelligent Design or whatever else you call it by a mile.

Bruno2
Bruno2

@MarkVV Though it likely exceeds your imagination, I'm trying to fill in that gap.  What is missing from the Big Bang and Evolution is "meaningfulness".  We're supposed to believe that completely random events somehow lead to miraculous arrangements of atoms which possess qualities as a group which none of them possess individually.  Douglas Hofstadter wrote an interesting book raising these questions back in 1980.  I met him personally when he visited my undergraduate college.

https://www.amazon.com/Gödel-Escher-Bach-Eternal-Golden/dp/0465026567/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1475196475&sr=1-1&keywords=godel+escher+bach+an+eternal+golden+braid

MarkVV
MarkVV

@Bruno2 @MarkVV I would thank you for confirming my point, that all that those opponents of the Theory of evolution have is a denial, without any evidence, and without a scientific evidence for an alternative. That something exceeds your or somebody else's imagination is just about the poorest argument one can submit. There are many discoveries that would have greatly exceeded the imagination of many scientists some years before they were accepted as valid.


But I won't do that, because you have again shown that you are incapable of writing in response to something you do not like without being insulting ("it likely exceeds your imagination'), and without bragging. What difference does it make, and who cares whom  you met personally when he or she visited your undergraduate college?

Bruno2
Bruno2

@MarkVV @Bruno2 In case you didn't read my post to Aquagirl below, Scientists, Philosophers and folks from many other academic disciplines have finally recognized the concept of Emergent Properties.  To not recognize it is to deny the truth, which you seem very content to do, settling instead for something you can wrap your limited imagination around despite its obvious inadequacies (Evolution).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergence

As for insults, virtually every one of your posts is condescending, which is why so many bloggers here react to you negatively.  In contrast, my posts vary by who I'm talking to.


Bruno2
Bruno2

Aquagirl: "What is this "intelligent adaptation" you keep tossing out? It's nothing but a made-up definition on your part."

AG--When a person studies Chemistry and Physics at a deep level, eventually they begin to question WHY things work as they do.  When you study the Laws of Quantum Physics, you realize how complex even the simplest interaction between two hydrogen atoms is in terms of writing out the equations.  In fact, even the fastest computers in the world today cannot calculate the quantum equations for anything much beyond that "simple" interaction.  For another example, calculating the gravitational effects when more than two objects are involved is an incredibly complex math problem, as crazy as that sounds.

As such, most Scientists eventually develop a deep appreciation of how well the Universe works together and how miraculous it is that living beings ever developed.  As I queried yesterday, how is it possible for an estimated 7 x 10^27 atoms to all work together in a human body in a coordinated way??  It's beyond mind-boggling.  As a result, most Scientists throughout History eventually develop a deep spiritual appreciation for life.  In fact, though Hedley scoffs at religious faith, all of the Scientists he has mentioned so far including Newton and Mendel were people of faith.  Even Einstein, an avowed atheist, famously said "God doesn't play dice with the Universe."

I'm not sure what your own spiritual leanings are, but to not have any is pretty unintelligent.  Because I don't believe in supernatural beings, I prefer to use the term "Universal Intelligence".


Aquagirl
Aquagirl

@Bruno2 You could have just typed "I'm a creationist" and saved us all the trouble.

Bruno2
Bruno2

@Aquagirl @Bruno2 A Creationist requires a belief in a Creator, which I have none.  Sorry I don't fit in the little boxes which apparently your mind is divided into.  You and Hedley have a lot in common.

Aquagirl
Aquagirl

@Bruno2 Well, don't be coy---what role do you think this universal intelligence played if it didn't create us?

For somebody who demands endless explanations you sure aren't forthcoming about your own hypothesis.  

Bruno2
Bruno2

@Aquagirl @Bruno2 AG--As I stated yesterday, both the Big Bang and Evolution require a belief in ex nihilo creation, literally creation "out of nothing".  I'm not disputing that.  There is no external Creator that anyone can determine.  What I'm describing is within the framework of ex nihilo. Can you at least understand and accept that??  I'm not arguing for a Creator.  I'm merely questioning where "meaning" comes from.  In the meaningless world of Big Bangers and Evolutionists, any questions about "meaningfulness" are simply swept under the rug.  Yet, when I look around me, meaningfulness abounds.

Are you with me so far??

Bruno2
Bruno2

@Aquagirl @Bruno2 To scratch the surface of meaningfulness, you have to question how and why atoms bind to one another in the first place.  You have to consider that while a human consists primarily of hydrogen, carbon, oxygen, nitrogen, etc, qualitatively we are much more than the sum of the individual atoms.

At the atomic level, there are no properties of matter which lead to "self-organization", which in fact is what happened somewhere along the evolutionary trail.  To explain this, Scientists now speak of "emergent properties".  If using that term makes you feel safer, then feel free to use it.  But in the end, they are saying the same thing I'm saying and asking the same questions.

If your imagination never sparks you to question how these "higher levels" of meaning develop, that is your choice.  Personally, I find such questions fascinating, both from a scientific AND spiritual standpoint.

Aquagirl
Aquagirl

@Bruno2 I think I got it----with this order comes a caretaker, more than a creator. And that caretaker could be anyone. 

That was enlightening, thank you for taking the time to explain a very complex idea. I think I understand your position better, even if I don't agree. 

MarkVV
MarkVV

To debate a complex scientific question on a political blog is inevitably a waste of time. We have seen it in the past with regard to anthropogenic climate change.

There is no doubt that Hedley is right in the way he makes distinction between scientific theory and a scientific law. It is thus doubly mystifying to read Bruno’s agreement with “Hedley’s nomenclature,” and in only a few sentences later to try to dispute it by claiming that the theory of evolution is "not proven". You do not “prove” a scientific theory; you support it with scientific evidence.

Bruno2
Bruno2

@MarkVV See my explanation below. My use of the word "proven" was meant to be taken informally to mean "not supported by the evidence".  Normal, intelligent people understand what I meant without all of the unnecessary parsing that you demand.

MarkVV
MarkVV

@Bruno2 @MarkVV A dispute of the difference between a "proof" and "evidence" has been in the heart of many of the posts below. It is hardly an "unnecessary parsing" to make clear the difference.

Eye wonder
Eye wonder

@IReportYouWhine 

I didn't forget Reagan. Lincoln is widely regarded as the greatest (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_rankings_of_Presidents_of_the_United_States). Reagan doesn't even crack the top 5, and in most instances not even the top 10. Reagan was a nice enough guy, optimistic, clearly beloved during his reign. He was 1,000,000x the man / person that Trump is.  But I think his economic policies are a big reason for the mess we're in today.  And by contemporary standards - and I know you will strongly disagree - he and Clinton are in about the same place on the L - R political spectrum.

Reagan would be appalled by Trump and the prospect of Trump anywhere near the White House other than as an invited guest or part of the hired help.

IReportYouWhine
IReportYouWhine

What is now known as Ohm's law appeared in this famous book Die galvanische Kette, mathematisch bearbeitet (1827) in which he gave his complete theory of electricity. The book begins with the mathematical background necessary for an understanding of the rest of the work. We should remark here that such a mathematical background was necessary for even the leading German physicists to understand the work, for the emphasis at this time was on a non-mathematical approach to physics. We should also remark that, despite Ohm's attempts in this introduction, he was not really successful in convincing the older German physicists that the mathematical approach was the right one. 



http://www.juliantrubin.com/bigten/ohmlawexperiments.html



And after his theory was tested and proven beyond a doubt, it became what is known as "Ohm's Law."


Fact.

MarkVV
MarkVV

@IReportYouWhine You really should stay away from the subject of science, unless you want keep making a fool of yourself. According to your post, Ohm “gave” a “complete theory of electricity.” And after “something” was “tested and proven,” it “became known as “Ohm’s Law.”

Thus, in your infinite scientific knowledge, Ohm’s law is a proof of the “theory of electricity?” I think a high school student would be flunked because of such answer.

Aquagirl
Aquagirl

@IReportYouWhine They're using "theory" in the colloquial sense. Which proves nothing. 


Bzzzzt. Try again.

Wascatlady
Wascatlady

Actually I scored 100%.  Those pesky unseen asterisks.

RafeHollister
RafeHollister

Newton's third law


The third law states that all forces between two objects exist in equal magnitude and opposite direction: if one object A exerts a force FA on a second object B, then B simultaneously exerts a force FB on A, and the two forces are equal in magnitude and opposite in direction: FA = −FB. 


Newton didn't just sit down and write up a bunch of laws of physics that all scientist accepted.  He had to postulate theories to explain what he observed.  He then had to determine that his theories were correct and could be reproduced by others.  Others then took his research and reproduced the same results.  Once all scientist were convinced that these theories were correct, they accepted them as a law.  



Bruno2
Bruno2

@RafeHollister Rafe--if you care to read the link I posted for Hedley, the difference between a Law and a Theory is in what it is trying to accomplish.  Scientific Laws are generally mathematical formulas which describe physical phenomena quantitatively.  For example, Newton's Laws of Gravitation and Motion give (nearly) exact formulas which allow us to numerically predict what will happen when forces are applied to objects. 

What Laws don't do is tell us how and why a certain phenomenon is happening.  As easy as it is to calculate the effects of gravity, no one knows to this day WHY gravity exists.  Particularly the "action at a distance" component of gravitational forces.  In other words, how does the Moon "know" what the Earth is doing??  What travels through space to inform the Moon that the Earth has shifted one direction or another??  Physicists have come up with some wild explanations as to what is going on, e.g. "gravitons", but no one has yet discovered any intrinsic properties of matter which explain it.  Such qualitative explanations are termed "Theories".

What Hedley keeps tripping up on is the fact that not all Theories are on equal footing in terms of proof.  Ultimately, no Theory can ever be proven 100% because they are all models which are subject to change with better information.  In the case of Evolution, Big Bang or AGW, none are even close to matching the observed phenomena.  Good luck getting him to accept thta, however.

FIGMO2
FIGMO2

Silly humans.

Rare frog goes extinct, despite Atlanta’s rescue efforts

http://www.accessatlanta.com/news/rare-frog-goes-extinct-despite-atlanta-rescue-efforts/XyqNH9Sb3DmOsSqCStsJDM/

In 2008 the Garden purchased and outfitted a climate-controlled facility known as the Frog Pod, designed to house the Rabb’s tree frog and other rare amphibians in complete isolation from each other. It is in this facility that the Rabbs’ frog spent the last eight years of its 11-plus year lifespan.

Couldn't even save the little fella in a climate-controlled facility. 

IReportYouWhine
IReportYouWhine

Newton's theory of gravitation

In 1687, English mathematician Sir Isaac Newton published Principia, which hypothesizes the inverse-square law of universal gravitation. In his own words, "I deduced that the forces which keep the planets in their orbs must [be] reciprocally as the squares of their distances from the centers about which they revolve: and thereby compared the force requisite to keep the Moon in her Orb with the force of gravity at the surface of the Earth; and found them answer pretty nearly. "



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity#Newton.27s_theory_of_gravitation



LOL

Aquagirl
Aquagirl

@Hedley_Lammar Remember, Headly, you're arguing with a guy who had how to fix that gas pipeline in a couple of days all figgered out, those engineers just weren't as smart as him, lol. 

RafeHollister
RafeHollister

@Aquagirl @Hedley_Lammar They fixed it in a few days, much to the chagrin of those who predicted it might take a long time and we "needed to do something now" to stop the gouging.  Amazing isn't it, when things turn out to be as simple as the conservatives say it is.  No laws were needed, no emergency interaction, no need for executive action, no need to trample the Constitution, no need for more Democrats.   Too bad!

Aquagirl
Aquagirl

@RafeHollister Only a con could ignore the fact it was the *Republican* governor who was needing to do something.  

Hedley_Lammar
Hedley_Lammar

 Much experimentation and research that could be duplicated by others turned them into laws.


THEORIES DON'T TURN INTO LAWS

IT HAS NEVER HAPPENED IN THE HISTORY OF SCIENCE.

Bruno2
Bruno2

Technically speaking, Hedley is correct on the nomenclature.  Having said that, however, not all Theories are given equal weight.  The fact remains that Evolution is still far from proven, regardless of what percentage of Biologists buy into it.  The Science of Genetics isn't far enough along to track whether "fortuitous mutations" have ever led to an intelligent adaptation by an organism and the fossil record is too sparse to show any species morphing into other species.

http://www.livescience.com/21457-what-is-a-law-in-science-definition-of-scientific-law.html

Aquagirl
Aquagirl

@Bruno2 What is this "intelligent adaptation" you keep tossing out? It's nothing but a made-up definition on your part.

Hedley_Lammar
Hedley_Lammar

@Aquagirl @Bruno2 Its warmed over creationism


Pseudoscience.


It springs from a false dichotomy.


Namely that if evolution doesnt prove something yet. Then it must be intelligent adaption



Continue to deny evolution and remain ignorant if you wish.


Its your choice.

Bruno2
Bruno2

@Hedley_Lammar @Aquagirl @Bruno2 The only false dichotomies are those that exist in your mind.  It is you who insists on labeling anyone who challenges Evolution a "Creationist".

The bottom line is that you and Aquagirl haven't studied enough Chemistry or Physics at the deepest levels to even appreciate what I'm talking about.