Presidential Debate No.2

oscarBravo · 10-10-2016 4:59pm

oik wrote: »

Another good moment for Trump was when he asked Clinton why she wasn't spending much of her own money on her campaign

oik wrote: »

His answer on the tax issue was also very good.

I think I understand now why we've been talking at cross purposes. I've been looking at the candidates, wondering which one is better suited to run the government of a large country. You've been watching a reality TV show, and are judging the contestants by how well their one-liners went down with a popcorn-eating audience.

Amerika wrote: »

How many of these Hillary scumbag quotes will invoke the media's wrath?

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2016/10/if_you_think_donald_trumps_comments_are_vulgar_check_out_hillarys_potty_mouth.html

My prediction: Zilch, nada, none.

I'm at an absolute loss as to how you think this is about Trump's language.

Seriously: he talks about sexually assaulting women, and you manage to convince yourself that people are up in arms because he said the f-word?

What kind of a conscious act of self-delusion does that even take? I can't get my head around it.

Eric Cartman wrote: »

A serious walkover by trump
"because you'd be in jail" - the crowd went nuts.

Yeah, everyone loves a tinpot dictator that abuses the justice system to settle political grudges.

When did threats of abuse of power become debate-winning material?

BoatMad · 10-10-2016 5:00pm

oik wrote: »

Yeah, he should say he'll release his tax returns when she releases her wall street speeches.

She promised to during the primaries and never honoured her promise.

She has as much of an obligation to release the speeches and Trump does his taxes.

If he does that I predict she drops the tax return demands immediately.

Trump will never release his taxes, because it would reveal he's worthless, and a big liar.

oscarBravo · 10-10-2016 5:00pm

oik wrote: »

Yeah, he should say he'll release his tax returns when she releases her wall street speeches.

"I have just as much to be ashamed of as my opponent does" - there's a compelling message.

BoatMad · 10-10-2016 5:01pm

Amerika wrote: »

How many of these Hillary scumbag quotes will invoke the media's wrath?

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2016/10/if_you_think_donald_trumps_comments_are_vulgar_check_out_hillarys_potty_mouth.html

My prediction: Zilch, nada, none.

saying F&uck to a secret service detail , is entirely different to basically abusing every women in America, even the description of " potty mouth" misses the point , it now that he sys "fu%K" its his attitude to women that comes across.

oik · 10-10-2016 5:02pm

oscarBravo wrote: »

I think I understand now why we've been talking at cross purposes. I've been looking at the candidates, wondering which one is better suited to run the government of a large country. You've been watching a reality TV show, and are judging the contestants by how well their one-liners went down with a popcorn-eating audience.

You're exactly right.

Although you sound like you've made your mind up a long time ago, so I'm wondering why you wouldn't now kick back and enjoy the show.

oik · 10-10-2016 5:03pm

oscarBravo wrote: »

"I have just as much to be ashamed of as my opponent does" - there's a compelling message.

Not sure how you gleaned that message.

Eric Cartman · 10-10-2016 5:03pm

oscarBravo wrote: »

Yeah, everyone loves a tinpot dictator that abuses the justice system to settle political grudges.

When did threats of abuse of power become debate-winning material?

Nobody is saying that he's right, or that the points made were based in fact, but in american mud slinging dumpster fire politics , he completely ruined her on that stage.

oscarBravo · 10-10-2016 5:09pm

oik wrote: »

You're exactly right.

Although you sound like you've made your mind up a long time ago, so I'm wondering why you wouldn't now kick back and enjoy the show.

What's to enjoy? There's still a possibility that the worst candidate in the history of American politics could be elected. Granted, I don't live in America, but a world where that buffoon is running a country would be a substantially worse world for almost everyone in it. Except maybe Putin.

oik wrote: »

Not sure how you gleaned that message.

It's pretty obvious, really.

Eric Cartman wrote: »

Nobody is saying that he's right, or that the points made were based in fact, but in american mud slinging dumpster fire politics , he completely ruined her on that stage.

Maybe he should have hit her with a chair. Because that seems to be about the standard that applies to presidential debates these days.

oik · 10-10-2016 5:09pm

oscarBravo wrote: »

Yeah, everyone loves a tinpot dictator that abuses the justice system to settle political grudges.

When did threats of abuse of power become debate-winning material?

Hillary should have been prosecuted.

Most Americans believe what she did was illegal. http://thehill.com/policy/national-security/287884-huge-majority-believes-clinton-either-broke-law-or-made-poor

Trump couldn't be taken seriously as someone who was going to root out corruption unless he was prepared to prosecute the highers ups just the same as the lower downs.

K-9 · 10-10-2016 5:13pm

Nobody ruined anybody, that's bias getting in the way. Same as some Trump supporters thought he'd won last time because of fixed online polls.

He did well, probably mostly because people expect so little of him.

oscarBravo · 10-10-2016 5:14pm

oik wrote: »

Hillary should have been prosecuted.

Most Americans believe what she did was illegal. http://thehill.com/policy/national-security/287884-huge-majority-believes-clinton-either-broke-law-or-made-poor

Oh, fantastic. Let's replace the checks and balances of a justice system with more frigging reality TV.

Since when, exactly, was it up to "most Americans" to decide whether or not someone should be prosecuted?

Trump couldn't be taken seriously as someone who was going to root out corruption unless he was prepared to prosecute the highers ups just the same as the lower downs.

It's actually slightly terrifying the way the same people who admire Donald Trump also don't seem to understand little things like separation of powers.

It's not the President's job to prosecute people. Go read some middle-school civics texts.

BoatMad · 10-10-2016 5:18pm

Hillary should have been prosecuted.

not for you or Trump to decide , thats why we have operation of powers , thank god . otherwise we'd have lynch mob criminal justice systems

oik · 10-10-2016 5:23pm

oscarBravo wrote: »

Oh, fantastic. Let's replace the checks and balances of a justice system with more frigging reality TV.

Since when, exactly, was it up to "most Americans" to decide whether or not someone should be prosecuted? It's actually slightly terrifying the way the same people who admire Donald Trump also don't seem to understand little things like separation of powers.

It's not the President's job to prosecute people. Go read some middle-school civics texts.

We're talking about two different things here. First off, Trump's promise to prosecute her will go down well because of what the public thinks about her crimes.

Secondly, what she did was illegal. A sackless FBI director and an AG who is beholden to the Clintons doesn't change the facts of the case.

The president is the head of the executive branch and it's the job of the Attorney General (who is part of the executive) to prosecute.

oik · 10-10-2016 5:26pm

BoatMad wrote: »

not for you or Trump to decide , thats why we have operation of powers , thank god . otherwise we'd have lynch mob criminal justice systems

It is for me to decide what my opinion is.

Loretta Lynch was in the unenviable position of having to prosecute her long time friend and the wife of the man who gave her her first public appointment. The same man who cornered her on a runway for 30 minutes the week the FBI report was delivered to the AG

In any normal democracy that situation would probably have sufficient oversight, but every branch of government in America is politicised so you can't take the decision not to prosecute as any indication of innocence.

Trump will give Hillary her day in court and a jury will decide.

oscarBravo · 10-10-2016 5:30pm

oik wrote: »

We're talking about two different things here. First off, Trump's promise to prosecute her will go down well because of what the public thinks about her crimes.

I'm seriously going to have to stop discussing this with you, because your frame of reference is the pretendy-world that Trump has constructed for himself and his supporters, because they don't seem to be able to cope with how the actual world, containing the actual US government, works.

When you're interested in a conversation about the actual election for the actual presidency, as opposed to the reality TV construct that you appear to be talking about, come back to me.

Secondly, what she did was illegal. A sackless FBI director and an AG who is beholden to the Clintons doesn't change the facts of the case.

Well, I guess that's it, then. We can repeal the Fifth Amendment: some randomer on the Internet calling himself "oik" has appointed himself the arbiter of guilt and innocence.

The president is the head of the executive branch and it's the job of the Attorney General (who is part of the executive) to prosecute.

No, seriously. Go read a civics text. I'll wait.

Quin_Dub · 10-10-2016 5:33pm

The whole talk of who won or lost is not really taking into account the critical measurement of success for both candidates..

Going in to the Debate , Clinton was in the lead by ~3 points in the National polls and ahead by varying amounts (albeit some very slender leads) in virtually all the "Battleground" states.

So , the minimum success criteria for Clinton was to hold on to those leads.

For Trump it was to try and change the above..

Trump was no doubt stronger than his 1st Debate (not hard tbh , given how abject a performance it was) and definitely delivered for his base in terms of scoring points that they see as important.

But the key question - Was his performance likely to shift the needle in those polls and make Clinton or Undecided voters shift to him?

I'd suggest that it wasn't - He did nothing to dissuade any confirmed Clinton voters from voting for her - They've already made their minds up about eMails and her reactions to Bill's swordsmanship etc., so rehashing them gets him nothing...

Did he shift some undecideds?

Possibly, but I don't think he did anything like enough to move them to his side in any great numbers.

So - In my view , Clinton broke even which for her, met her minimums , Trump however did not make the in-roads he needed so it could perhaps be called a battle won , but no real strategic progress made in the war.

ebbsy · 10-10-2016 5:33pm

Eric Cartman wrote: »

oscarBravo wrote: »

Yeah, everyone loves a tinpot dictator that abuses the justice system to settle political grudges.

When did threats of abuse of power become debate-winning material?

Nobody is saying that he's right, or that the points made were based in fact, but in american mud slinging dumpster fire politics , he completely ruined her on that stage.

Very good point. The Don will take whoever is within blast radius down with him and he won't give a **** about it either.

Amerika · 10-10-2016 5:36pm

BoatMad wrote: »

not for you or Trump to decide , thats why we have operation of powers , thank god . otherwise we'd have lynch mob criminal justice systems

The next head of the Department of Justice can decide Comey's recommendation not to file charges were politically compromised and there is enough evidence to prosecute Hillary Clinton.

http://nypost.com/2016/10/06/fbi-agents-are-ready-to-revolt-over-the-cozy-clinton-probe/

oik · 10-10-2016 5:42pm

oscarBravo wrote: »

I'm seriously going to have to stop discussing this with you, because your frame of reference is the pretendy-world that Trump has constructed for himself and his supporters, because they don't seem to be able to cope with how the actual world, containing the actual US government, works.

When you're interested in a conversation about the actual election for the actual presidency, as opposed to the reality TV construct that you appear to be talking about, come back to me. Well, I guess that's it, then. We can repeal the Fifth Amendment: some randomer on the Internet calling himself "oik" has appointed himself the arbiter of guilt and innocence. No, seriously. Go read a civics text. I'll wait.

The fact that you think that only Trump supporters are saying Hillary is guilty shows I'm not the one living in pretendy world.

Amerika · 10-10-2016 5:44pm

ECO_Mental wrote: »

Going after the moderators....he is a child

More like speaking truth to power, if you ask me.

oik · 10-10-2016 5:48pm

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v8ewCgdpnlc

In the first 2 minutes of this video Director Comey admits that what Clinton did was effectively illegal but they simply wouldn't prosecute because muh American values.

Only in a country run by lawyers is "extreme carelessness" not tantamount to gross negligence.

oscarBravo · 10-10-2016 5:50pm

oik wrote: »

The fact that you think that only Trump supporters are saying Hillary is guilty shows I'm not the one living in pretendy world.

And what a cutting and insightful point that would be, if only you were rebutting anything I'd actually said.

oik · 10-10-2016 5:52pm

oscarBravo wrote: »

And what a cutting and insightful point that would be, if only you were rebutting anything I'd actually said.

You just made a bunch of personal attacks, I don't need to rebut anything.

oscarBravo · 10-10-2016 5:55pm

oik wrote: »

In the first 2 minutes of this video Director Comey admits that what Clinton did was effectively illegal but they simply wouldn't prosecute because muh American values.

Actually, he talks about mens rea. He even explains what it means.

Maybe you didn't hear what he said because you were too busy shouting "she's a witch! burn her!" at your screen.

oik · 10-10-2016 5:57pm

oscarBravo wrote: »

Actually, he talks about mens rea. He even explains what it means.

Maybe you didn't hear what he said because you were too busy shouting "she's a witch! burn her!" at your screen.

He doesn't explain it very well.

Some crimes require different types of mens rea.

Some don't require it at all.

He doesn't go into that.

Intent is just one form of mens rea

Negligence is another

Phoebas · 10-10-2016 5:59pm

oik wrote: »

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v8ewCgdpnlc

In the first 2 minutes of this video Director Comey admits that what Clinton did was effectively illegal but they simply wouldn't prosecute because muh American values.

Only in a country run by lawyers is "extreme carelessness" not tantamount to gross negligence.

.

James Comey wrote:

No reasonable prosecutor would bring this case.

oik · 10-10-2016 6:00pm

Phoebas wrote: »

No reasonable prosecutor would bring this case

He then admits that numerous friends of his would

Phoebas · 10-10-2016 6:12pm

oik wrote: »

He then admits that numerous friends of his would

On those:

James Comey wrote:

I wonder where they were the last 40 years, 'cos I'd like to see the cases they brought on gross negligence, nobody would, nobody did.

Of course, its easy to be a hurler on the ditch. It's all very easy to say what you might do when you don't have the burden of an actual decision to concern yourself with.

oik · 10-10-2016 6:30pm

Phoebas wrote: »

On those:

Of course, its easy to be a hurler on the ditch. It's all very easy to say what you might do when you don't have the burden of an actual decision to concern yourself with.

This was a unique case of a high ranking official keeping a server in her private residence.

There's no precedent for recommending or not recommending prosecution which means the director should follow the statute.

His argument was basically, this law has never been enforced in this scenario, easily defeated by the fact that there has never been this scenario before

Phoebas · 10-10-2016 6:36pm

oik wrote: »

This was a unique case of a high ranking official keeping a server in her private residence.

There's no precedent for recommending or not recommending prosecution which means the director should follow the statute.

His argument was basically, this law has never been enforced in this scenario, easily defeated by the fact that there has never been this scenario before

While I welcome your legal analysis, I'm going to go with the Director of the FBI on this one.

Amerika · 10-10-2016 6:47pm

Phoebas wrote: »

While I welcome your legal analysis, I'm going to go with the Director of the FBI on this one.

The Director of the FBI might be in big trouble with Congress for his mishandling of the case.

http://nypost.com/2016/10/06/fbi-agents-are-ready-to-revolt-over-the-cozy-clinton-probe/

Phoebas · 10-10-2016 6:59pm

Amerika wrote: »

The Director of the FBI might be in big trouble with Congress for his mishandling of the case.

http://nypost.com/2016/10/06/fbi-agents-are-ready-to-revolt-over-the-cozy-clinton-probe/

While that's a very interesting op-ed in the New York Times, it didn't actually say anything about the Director being in trouble with Congress. It mentions some wishful thinking by someone who once worked at the FBI.

Some former FBI official wrote:

Smith said Congress should subpoena the case’s agents to testify about the direction they received from Comey and their supervisors

There's a lot of clutching at straws here. I think the most you can hope for is for Trump's special prosecutor to open it up again when he becomes President.

Amerika · 10-10-2016 7:08pm

Phoebas wrote: »

While that's a very interesting op-ed in the New York Times, it didn't actually say anything about the Director being in trouble with Congress. It mentions some wishful thinking by someone who once worked at the FBI.

There's a lot of clutching at straws here. I think the most you can hope for is for Trump's special prosecutor to open it up again when he becomes President.

You might be interested in his testimony before Congress, then.

http://lawnewz.com/high-profile/5-revealing-moments-from-fbi-director-james-comeys-congressional-testimony/

Also, it seems Comely/DOJ, without informing Congress, gave immunities to people under investigation that probably should have been prosecuted instead of been given immunity. I think there will still be hell to pay over this.

http://lawnewz.com/high-profile/congressman-drops-bombshell-claims-fbi-gave-more-immunity-than-first-disclosed/

Phoebas · 10-10-2016 7:15pm

Amerika wrote: »

You might be interested in his testimony before Congress, then.

http://lawnewz.com/high-profile/5-revealing-moments-from-fbi-director-james-comeys-congressional-testimony/

Also, it seems Comely/DOJ, without informing Congress, gave immunities to people under investigation that probably should have been prosecuted instead of been given immunity. I think there will still be hell to pay over this.

http://lawnewz.com/high-profile/congressman-drops-bombshell-claims-fbi-gave-more-immunity-than-first-disclosed/

Yeah - that's all very interesting, but I'm not seeing how it makes a difference.
This was Comey's call. Some member of Congress mightn't like it, but their role is oversight, not operational.

I'm not seeing what the 'big trouble' is or how it will effect the election.

KingBrian2 · 10-10-2016 7:23pm

Two points about Trump having no policies to defeat ISIS.

In order to defeat ISIS you have to be willing to label them for what they are Radical Islamic terrorists.

He also wants to deport the Syrian criminals, murderers & terrorists back to their own country and not accept them into America with open arms. These people are not the Irish emigrants who travelled to the new world seeking a better life or the Africans who came as slaves. The Jews that fled the holocaust. The British escaping the taxes of the King.

They come to do harm to America and Europe. Ignoring this fact allows ISIS to grow and grow. The fallacy of believing these people are righteous peaceful people is just that a fallacy and one propagated by the media.

Phoebas · 10-10-2016 7:26pm

KingBrian2 wrote: »

In order to defeat ISIS you have to be willing to label them for what they are Radical Islamic terrorists.

Are there people out there who aren't already labeling them so? :eek:

oik · 10-10-2016 7:26pm

Phoebas wrote: »

Yeah - that's all very interesting, but I'm not seeing how it makes a difference.
This was Comey's call. Some member of Congress mightn't like it, but their role is oversight, not operational.

I'm not seeing what the 'big trouble' is or how it will effect the election.

It probably won't make a difference if Trump is not elected because the establishment will continue to protect itself.

If Trump gets elected a lot of people who used to be above the law might find themselves under it.

Amerika · 10-10-2016 7:27pm

Phoebas wrote: »

Yeah - that's all very interesting, but I'm not seeing how it makes a difference.
This was Comey's call. Some member of Congress mightn't like it, but their role is oversight, not operational.

I'm not seeing what the 'big trouble' is or how it will effect the election.

Trey Gowdy is no one to be messed with.

And a new update. Comely might be trying to redeem himself in other ways. It might be too late for information to come out before the election, but not for an impeachment.

FBI Director James Comey has decided to flex his muscles and ignore the DoJ’s request that he cease investigating the Clinton Foundation for criminal activity.

Following Attorney General Loretta Lynch’s decision to block a Clinton Foundation probe, Comey ignored her orders and instructed FBI staff to launch multiple investigations into the Clinton’s anyway.

Phoebas · 10-10-2016 7:35pm

Amerika wrote: »

Trey Gowdy is no one to be messed with.

And a new update. Comely might be trying to redeem himself in other ways. It might be too late for information to come out before the election, but not for an impeachment.

Ah c'mon, have you given up on the election result, and already looking towards the impeachment.

You'd never know, Trump might recover some ground over the next couple of weeks.

vetinari · 10-10-2016 7:36pm

Gowdy showed himself to be an idiot in the deposition of Clinton.
I thought style wise, Trump had a much better debate performance last night than the first one.
He still lost the debate though.
Continuing to describe the tape as locker room banter was a disaster for him.
That alone was enough to declare the debate a victory for Clinton.

Billy86 · 10-10-2016 7:39pm

Amerika wrote: »

The Director of the FBI might be in big trouble with Congress for his mishandling of the case.

http://nypost.com/2016/10/06/fbi-agents-are-ready-to-revolt-over-the-cozy-clinton-probe/

Oh, look - The Donald Trump Post!

Amerika · 10-10-2016 7:46pm

Phoebas wrote: »

Ah c'mon, have you given up on the election result, and already looking towards the impeachment.

You'd never know, Trump might recover some ground over the next couple of weeks.

I believe I always said I thought Hillary would win. But I don't think I ever gave a timeline to how long she would remain president. Although I think I did once offer a solution on how she might be able to continue to serve... bars on the oval office doors and windows.

Billy86 · 10-10-2016 7:51pm

Ouch... just ouch.

"But but but... the big meanie 'mainstream media' (which includes FOX don't forget!) and their facts and reality are such meanies that I don't want to listen, so I'll retreat to my 'safe spaces' like Rasmussen. They know the truth!" shout the Trump fans. Well yeah, about that...

KingBrian2 · 10-10-2016 8:02pm

I wonder what will happen if or when Johnson & Stein pull out.:)

Pro Hoc Vice · 10-10-2016 8:05pm

KingBrian2 wrote: »

I wonder what will happen if or when Johnson & Stein pull out.:)

Nothing as the ballots are printed, and more importantly 45 million will have cast votes before Election Day in fact millions of ballots have already been cast.

Mr.Micro · 10-10-2016 8:09pm

Pro Hoc Vice wrote: »

Nothing as the ballots are printed, and more importantly 45 million will have cast votes before Election Day in fact millions of ballots have already been cast.

Those millions that have voted and the millions still to vote, will do so, on which candidate they dislike the most, as neither has credibility.

Billy86 · 10-10-2016 8:21pm

Mr.Micro wrote: »

Those millions that have voted and the millions still to vote, will do so, on which candidate they dislike the most, as neither has credibility.

Not necessarily on your first part as both Stein and Johnson are still in the race. But as for your second (and this is a pretty damning endictment of the entire election)...

Clinton:

Trump:

...it would only point toward an even bigger landslide.

Pro Hoc Vice · 10-10-2016 8:22pm

Mr.Micro wrote: »

Those millions that have voted and the millions still to vote, will do so, on which candidate they dislike the most, as neither has credibility.

My comment was made in relation to a point what would happen "when" the other two candidates pull out, I simply pointed out that nothing would happen as the ballots are out.

Overheal · 10-10-2016 8:23pm

KingBrian2 wrote: »

Two points about Trump having no policies to defeat ISIS.

In order to defeat ISIS you have to be willing to label them for what they are Radical Islamic terrorists.

Religious leaders of Islam would argue differently, and wouldn't it be just like a terrorist organization to claim religious precedent to justify their war? If they invoke Islam in their cause, they can attempt to tap into anyone of fighting strength among 1.6 Billion followers of Islam. If they are seen as an extremist, invalid terror group, that pool of potential recruits severely diminishes. You can't declare war on 1.6 Billion people's ideology and expect to win either the moral high ground, or the war itself. That was the message from the GWB years, The Obama years, and I dare say even the Clinton and GHWB years I would have to reckon.

You want to stop WWIII? Don't declare war on 1.6 Billion people.

He also wants to deport the Syrian criminals, murderers & terrorists back to their own country and not accept them into America with open arms. These people are not the Irish emigrants who travelled to the new world seeking a better life or the Africans who came as slaves. The Jews that fled the holocaust. The British escaping the taxes of the King.

They come to do harm to America and Europe. Ignoring this fact allows ISIS to grow and grow. The fallacy of believing these people are righteous peaceful people is just that a fallacy and one propagated by the media.

Ah sure jayziz isn't that Rosy tinted history there. The Irish came because they were starving, the Jews came because they were being killed, and you don't think there's any comparison between Syrians who are seeing their homes, towns, and livelihoods overrun with not just civil war but from armed intervention from forces like Saudi Arabia, Russia, and the United States? Themselves being killed? Starving?

But sure we have to label them all threats because they aren't going hungry from a lack of potatoes or being taxed by 'the man'.

This goes back to the previous point: once you assume you're at war with an entire world religion, your list of enemies is enormous. Good luck fighting that with what, $20T in debt and an army that is manned by a fraction of 350 million people and funded by a fraction of their collective wealth and economics? I salute you, for the dissonance it takes to view Muslims being killed by 'Muslims', who want to flee from the theater of war, as the extremists they're being killed by... I can see why the smart money is trying to colonize Mars.

yubabill1 · 10-10-2016 8:49pm

Overheal wrote: »

Religious leaders of Islam would argue differently, and wouldn't it be just like a terrorist organization to claim religious precedent to justify their war?
You want to stop WWIII? Don't declare war on 1.6 Billion people.

I salute you, for the dissonance it takes to view Muslims being killed by 'Muslims', who want to flee from the theater of war, as the extremists they're being killed by... I can see why the smart money is trying to colonize Mars.

A bit of an oversimplification IMHO.

Muslims killing Muslims boils down to sectarianism within the religion. Shia, Sunni etc.

Bit like saying Christians were killing Christians in WWI.

Until the ME abandons tribalism and takes its place among the developed world, Islam will continue to appeal to many in that part of the world, as it elevates "believers" above infidels and offers a comfort blanket to impoverished people with a chip on their shoulder about the industrialised West.

Presidential Debate No.2

Comments