The Third & Final US Presidential Debate

Billy86

Overheal wrote: »

You really should redact that post.

For what it's worth, I have since reported my own post (didn't know you could)!

4068ac1elhodqr

Just say what you think, don't hold back...

Enzokk

So there is this...


https://twitter.com/LindseyGrahamSC/status/788932279066329088

Arghus

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Not many impartial people here tonight.

I think objectively Trump is a terrible candidate to be President.

Clinton made him look foolish tonight, even more so than the first debate.

Billy86

flogthebog wrote: »

Wow.

The real wow is how up until a few months ago he was still claiming the first black President of the US must have been born in another country. As I said... act like a scumbag, get treated like a scumbag.

flogthebog

Billy86 wrote: »

For what it's worth, I have since reported my own post (didn't know you could)!

I have reported your posts on your behalf

Duck Soup

Lovely quote from the Republican strategist Nicole Wallace: "Basically tonight he lay down in a coffin with a hammer and nails and hammered the lid shut."

Overheal

The immediate reaction from MediaITE's online poll (before spoofing has good chances of taking place)

4068ac1elhodqr

Ah the bookie traders are back in from their smoke break, some slight drifting (or value) now on Trumptown, 5.5 but no 6.0 as of yet.

4068ac1elhodqr

Wonder what will happen if folks decide to void, or just not to bother voting due to universal lack of appeal.

Overheal

Dangelo Obnoxious Babysitter wrote: »

Wonder what will happen if folks decide to void, or just not to bother voting due to universal lack of appeal.

Polling is done among likely voters, so it's not a direct function of voter turnout. Probably won't see any wildly off variation from projections.

Billy86

Dangelo Obnoxious Babysitter wrote: »

Wonder what will happen if folks decide to void, or just not to bother voting due to universal lack of appeal.

Clinton will become President.

And if that doesn't happen... Clinton will become President.

I know you like value bets, but there is absolutely none to be had on Trump in this one. It's been finished for a few weeks now, and is only going to get worse for him.

~Rebel~

Dangelo Obnoxious Babysitter wrote: »

Wonder what will happen if folks decide to void, or just not to bother voting due to universal lack of appeal.

Thats pretty much what already happens. Last election had about a 42% turnout. There's never been a turnout higher than 45%.

Overheal

Initially voting laws were very draconian, limited to land owners, etc etc

~Rebel~

~Rebel~ wrote: »

Thats pretty much what already happens. Last election had about a 42% turnout. There's never been a turnout higher than 45%.

Actually this is slightly off, as that figure doesn't entirely take into account ineligible voters - the estimated figure of just eligible voters for the last election was more like 53% turnout for 2012. Which is still pretty horrendous.
(We're not much better to be honest though).

8-10

Jason Miller on FoxNews is hilarious right now

Manic Moran

Dangelo Obnoxious Babysitter wrote: »

Is it too late to introduce a 3rd candidate? Anyone would do...

Well, I'm voting for Johnson. Then again, I live in California, so it's not as if it matters much, but even if I were in a swing state, there's no way I'd vote of either of the two. Unfortunately, the way the 'rules' work around here, it's a self-defeating circle. You can't get a third party up on the stage because they're not 'big enough' to deserve it. But until you can get that third party visibility to show its stuff, they can't get big enough... So, maybe my vote will help for four years from now.

Unsurprisingly, Clinton brought out the stereotypical 'for the children' gun control crap saying that Heller was about keeping guns away from toddlers. Oddly, the word "toddler" or "child" does not appear once in the holding opinion, given the case had nothing to do with it.

I'll be fairly surprised if she doesn't win at this point, Trump just does himself in without any help from anyone else. But, that said, don't underestimate her unappeal to folks in mid-range places like Ohio. Trump's a blowhard, got it. This debate isn't going to convince more people of that, as I think it's already well cemented. But Clinton has to avoid pissing off those who aren't coastal liberals. She doesn't have people excited about voting for her so she has the solid base who don't need her to talk about such things in order to vote for her, but, she really needs to avoid encouraging people to vote against her.

Overheal

Trevor Noah is on fire tonight. I'll try to post the clip when I find one.

Billy86

8-10 wrote: »

Jason Miller on FoxNews is hilarious right now

Who is this utter cretin!?

"He's not alienating female voters with his comments" Just.......................

EDIT: Oh, did't know he's on the Trump team. Makes sense now, at least.

Elliott S

learn_more wrote: »

It's so funny watching Fox News. They have to talk in favour of Republicans but my God, you can see they are finding it very very difficult. I don't think we'll ever see anything like this ever again.

Yer wan from Breitbart on the Channel 4 coverage was struggling too and distanced herself from his election results and rigging comments.

Duck Soup wrote: »

Lovely quote from the Republican strategist Nicole Wallace: "Basically tonight he lay down in a coffin with a hammer and nails and hammered the lid shut."

Not all that eloquent but interesting!

vetinari

Disastrous debate from Trump.
I didn't think he could do any worse than the first debate.
Saying he wouldn't 100% accept the outcome of the election was outrageous.
That's going to be the headline maker for the next few days.

Realt Dearg Sec

Elliott S wrote: »

Yer wan from Breitbart on the Channel 4 coverage was struggling too and distanced herself from his election results and rigging comments.



Not all that eloquent but interesting!

He's ploughing an extremely lonely furrow on the election rigging line. His very popular daughter, his politically savvy running mate, his campaign manager, have all tried to play down what he's saying and distances themselves from it. And every time they try to "clarify" it and make him seem less nuts, he undermines them by doubling down, never more clearly than tonight. And every time they're left trying to spin it into something workable. But he's determined to down this road.

It makes no sense either way to me. Firstly, it's absolutely nutty. Second, is going to scare people who think it shows disdain for democracy, and lastly, it begs the question, why should his supporters bother their arse voting anyway?

Can't wait to see mike pence jump ship post election, his tell all as he gears up for his own tilt in four years will be interesting.

Duck Soup

Another snap poll, this time from CNN:

super_furry

super_furry wrote: »

Hang on? Did he just claim that Obama and Hilary paid people to start riots at Trump rallies?

Overheal wrote: »

Digging himself that hole with that rally violence accusation.

Curious.. Have you seen the evidence and decided to not believe it or have you not seen the evidence?

Carrie Palmer

Hillary is not just giving him a thrash, she is just surging ahead of Trump, What a blow for Trump at the such a juncture of presidential campaign

Elliott S

Deleted User wrote: »

Curious.. Have you seen the evidence and decided to not believe it or have you not seen the evidence?

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2016/oct/20/trump-says-clinton-and-obama-caused-violence-his-r/

Read the full article.

Wanderer78

Well crock of ****e or what?

Moo Moo Land

Did Trump really say he would not accept the election result?

Nody

Moo Moo Land wrote: »

Did Trump really say he would not accept the election result?

To everyone else yes; in Trump world he said he'd wait and see to be able to claim electorate fraud which he's been banging on about for the last year as the excuse why he's not going to win (even though both Pierce and his daughter claimed he'd accept it before the debate he refused to do so during the debate).

nomadchocolate

Elliott S wrote: »

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2016/oct/20/trump-says-clinton-and-obama-caused-violence-his-r/

Read the full article.

Not a Trump supporter but that article is so unconvincing. The 2 reasons they list as to be skeptical about the videos is that 1: it's edited and 2: the investigators used leading questions...which clearly wasn't the case.

The wikileaks emails and these videos back up that there was some form of collusion in my opinion.

Whether Hillary was aware, or if it was organised by her lieutenants who knows.

CMOTDibbler

Overheal wrote: »

Trevor Noah is on fire tonight. I'll try to post the clip when I find one.

Here you go:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=of7g9u54WsI

Eoin247

Trump improved on his two previous debates overall, and it could have possibly been considered a good performance from him if it wasn't for that disastrous line about not accepting the election results. Seriously, what was he thinking?

PropJoe10

Moo Moo Land wrote: »

Did Trump really say he would not accept the election result?

Said he'd wait and see. This man is a dangerous bollix. He's actually threatening democracy at this stage.

Elliott S

Elliott S wrote: »

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2016/oct/20/trump-says-clinton-and-obama-caused-violence-his-r/

Read the full article.

It's an astonishing display of double standards so believe what you want but be aware that not everyone who watches those Veritas videos does the mental gymnastics required to dismiss them.

CMOTDibbler

Deleted User wrote: »

It's an astonishing display of double standards so believe what you want but be aware that not everyone who watches those Veritas videos does the mental gymnastics required to dismiss them.

I don't dismiss them. I just don't take at face value what people are saying they prove. For example, saying that these provocateurs are causing violence is ignoring the fact that they are not being violent themselves. They are winding up Trump supporters, pretty easily it seems.

It's not pretty. But having a rentacrowd to wind up the opposition at their rallies is something that's been going on in politics everywhere for decades. Obama got booed and interrupted six or seven times during a speech last week by Trump supporters.

nomadchocolate

CMOTDibbler wrote: »

I don't dismiss them. I just don't take at face value what people are saying they prove. For example, saying that these provocateurs are causing violence is ignoring the fact that they are not being violent themselves. They are winding up Trump supporters, pretty easily it seems.

It's not pretty. But having a rentacrowd to wind up the opposition at their rallies is something that's been going on in politics everywhere for decades. Obama got booed and interrupted six or seven times during a speech last week by Trump supporters.

I think this is a really weak form of defence. It's wrong and should not be happening. The videos combined with the e-mails showed a level of coordination that is more sinister than a few individual Trump supporters taking it upon themselves to protest.

Personally I don't think Wikileaks has been much of a revelation apart from what is mentioned above.

CMOTDibbler

nomadchocolate wrote: »

I think this is a really weak form of defence. It's wrong and should not be happening. The videos combined with the e-mails showed a level of coordination that is more sinister than a few individual Trump supporters taking it upon themselves to protest.

Personally I don't think Wikileaks has been much of a revelation apart from what is mentioned above.

There's no way of stopping it. As long as rallies are public events, there will always be a way of disrupting them and protesting at them.

I'm not sure it's even right to try. After all, freedom of speech is in the US constitution and pretty much every other democracy in the world. If you want to turn up to a Clinton or Trump rally and shout opposition slogans (whether organised or not), that's your right.

CMOTDibbler

CMOTDibbler wrote: »

I don't dismiss them. I just don't take at face value what people are saying they prove. For example, saying that these provocateurs are causing violence is ignoring the fact that they are not being violent themselves. They are winding up Trump supporters, pretty easily it seems.

It's not pretty. But having a rentacrowd to wind up the opposition at their rallies is something that's been going on in politics everywhere for decades. Obama got booed and interrupted six or seven times during a speech last week by Trump supporters.

Trump said they incited violence which is what you've just described. But he shouldn't say it or something?

It's an eye-opening year in the media. For the first time ever, the would-be conspiracy theorists have proof for pretty much everything and it's just amazing to watch the media gloss over it and tell blatant lies.

Why is that when there was no evidence, the defense was "nope, wasn't there" but when there is evidence, it changes to "nothing to see here, it's always been like that"..

Pro Hoc Vice

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Trump said they incited violence which is what you've just described. But he shouldn't say it or something?

It's an eye-opening year in the media. For the first time ever, the would-be conspiracy theorists have proof for pretty much everything and it's just amazing to watch the media gloss over it and tell blatant lies.

Why is that when there was no evidence, the defense was "nope, wasn't there" but when there is evidence, it changes to "nothing to see here, it's always been like that"..

What did Clinton surporters do to incite violence?

jcsoulinger

I find it hilarious that Trump can accuse Hillary of inciting violence, when it's not completely clear if she had anything to do with it, Yet he stands in front of a mob of his supporters and tells them he would like to see some one punch that guy, and not to worry about a law suit as he will take care of it, he is completely a moral.

Billy86

jcsoulinger wrote: »

I find it hilarious that Trump can accuse Hillary of inciting violence, when it's not completely clear if she had anything to do with it, Yet he stands in front of a mob of his supporters and tells them he would like to see some one punch that guy, and not to worry about a law suit as he will take care of it, he is completely a moral.

That's the thing about almost all still lsupporting Trump - they flat out don't subscribe to reality, and just get more and more angry as it continues on without them. It's a big reason shy November 9th could be a very violent day in the US, which Trumps comments from last night will only make worse.

jcsoulinger

Pro Hoc Vice wrote: »

What did Clinton surporters do to incite violence?

Apparently they wore t-shirts, their barbarism knows no bounds.

Vital Transformation

PropJoe10 wrote: »

Said he'd wait and see. This man is a dangerous bollix. He's actually threatening democracy at this stage.

It's strange because he was asked would he accept the result by a journalist after one of the previous debates, I think it was on CNN as he was leaving the venue. He responded saying he would absolutely accept the outcome.

Pro Hoc Vice

jcsoulinger wrote: »

Apparently they wore t-shirts, their barbarism knows no bounds.

You mean they think the first amendment applies to them, how very dare they.

jcsoulinger

Billy86 wrote: »

That's the thing about almost all still lsupporting Trump - they flat out don't subscribe to reality, and just get more and more angry as it continues on without them. It's a big reason shy November 9th could be a very violent day in the US, which Trumps comments from last night will only make worse.

Ya he really needs to nip it the butt at this stage before things escalate.

The most annoying thing about the debate that they both are guilty of but Trump more so, Is they don't answer the question they are asked the mods need to be tougher on them and push them for a straight answer, I realise it's easier said than done. Trump is sounding like a broken record every debate had the same spiel, hes so negative loves talking about how supposedly bad things are but not getting much beyond "we are going to make America great again" when it comes to fixing it.

CMOTDibbler

Deleted User wrote: »

Trump said they incited violence which is what you've just described. But he shouldn't say it or something?

Did I actually ever say that?

Inciting violence by wearing tee shirts with slogans printed on them is a huge stretch in the meaning of the phrase. Unless there's been a new definition that I'm not aware of, it used to mean actually telling people to commit violence. Which Trump has done.

But while trying to point out the mote in my eye, you're studiously ignoring the plank in yours.

Billy86

Vital Transformation wrote: »

It's strange because he was asked would he accept the result by a journalist after one of the previous debates, I think it was on CNN as he was leaving the venue. He responded saying he would absolutely accept the outcome.

Trump being a lying, dishonest hypocrite who will go entirely back on his word on absolutely anything is hardly even the least bit surprising at this stage, to be fair.

alastair

Deleted User wrote: »

Trump said they incited violence which is what you've just described. But he shouldn't say it or something?

Here's what Trump actually alleged:

"If you look at what came out today on the clips," he said, "I was wondering what happened with my rally in Chicago and other rallies where we had such violence. She’s the one, and Obama, that caused the violence. They hired people, they paid them $1,500, and they’re on tape saying, be violent, cause fights, do bad things."

Is there anything to implicate Obama or Hillary in causing violence? Nope.
Did pro Democrat activists hire people to protest at Trump rallies? Yep.
Did pro Democrat activists pay people $1,500 to do so? Not that I've seen.
Is Obama or Hillary (or anyone for that matter) on tape saying 'be violent'? Nope.
Is Obama or Hillary (or anyone for that matter) on tape saying 'Cause fights'? Nope.
Is Obama or Hillary (or anyone for that matter) on tape saying 'Do bad things'? Nope.

Cheerful Spring

CNN and media outlets will say a rigged election is nonsense, but only a few months ago the very same media outlets were praising Hilary and saying Bernie was not electable. They pushed the viewing audience to believe Hilary was the only electable one here! Media are idiots the leaked emails even show the democratic party from the get go decided Bernie will not win and they wanted him out of the way, thats rigged election you idiots.

CMOTDibbler

Vital Transformation wrote: »

It's strange because he was asked would he accept the result by a journalist after one of the previous debates, I think it was on CNN as he was leaving the venue. He responded saying he would absolutely accept the outcome.

He was doing pretty well in the polls coming up to the first debate. His chances started to slide after that, but at the time 538 had him with a 45% chance of winning the election.

By the same yardstick he now has a 13% chance of winning.