The Third & Final US Presidential Debate

Amerika

Russia and China have been hacking us since the internet began. Do we increase security to a level to keep it from happening? NO!

Is anybody else concerned that Hillary is basically threatening war with Russia over her perceived belief that they are responsible for the WikiLeaks email dumps, and that president Obama, in attempt to get Hillary election is threatening outright cyber attacks against Russia? Obama should be doing cyber attacks covertly, regardless of poor Hillary. But to announce his intentions to attack Russia is paramount to a declaration of war. For what? Because Obama is pissed and believes Russia has exposed democrat lies and corruption.

ECO_Mental

Amerika wrote: »

The thing here is from just about every account I’ve ever read, republicans do not actively participate in voter fraud. It appears to be a democratic exclusion. Yes, the republicans do participate in gerrymandering to affect elections, as do democrats, but that’s about it, and gerrymandering is a legal tactic when utilized properly.

There was a guy on CNN last week who done three months probation for voter suppression/fraud. They were talking about was it possible to rig the election. This dude was working for the GOP and stated that his team did it and were convicted of it. Basically they called Democratic voters and told them not to vote to "relax" as the DNC candidate had won already He got three months probation for his organised GOP voter suppression work, Fact...

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/dc-politics/paul-schuricks-sentence-in-ehrlich-robocall-case-meant-to-send-message-judge-says/2012/02/16/gIQAJIjYIR_story.html

marienbad

Amerika wrote: »

It’s not just myth and speculation. It is a serious matter. And nobody can explain to me why we wouldn’t want to have the most fair and honest elections. We require ID for just about everything associated with the government. Why is voting anything different?

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/oct/17/no-voter-fraud-isnt-myth-10-cases-where-its-all-to/

Because it is addressing a non existent problem , Voter fraud has been shown time and time again to be a non issue in the USA .

Surely a far bigger concern is gerrymandering , but you seems to be ok with that ?

Amerika

Overheal wrote: »

You can't even convey what the problem is so it seems moot.

Again I post the question, don't you want a honest and fair election? If ID is such a problem for so many to provide ID, don't you think it also shouldn't be needed to get social security, welfare, a driving license, a bank account, a mortgage, to fly, etc, etc? Why just such a burden to vote? You get the picture.

Amerika

marienbad wrote: »

Because it is addressing a non existent problem , Voter fraud has been shown time and time again to be a non issue in the USA .

Surely a far bigger concern is gerrymandering , but you seems to be ok with that ?

Voter fraud is a problem. And gerrymandering, when used correctly to give populations fair representation, is legal. Why do you not see the difference between this and voter fraud?

CMOTDibbler

Amerika wrote: »

Again I post the question, don't you want a honest and fair election? If ID is such a problem for so many to provide ID, don't you think it also shouldn't be needed to get social security, welfare, a driving license, a bank account, a mortgage, to fly, etc, etc? Why just such a burden to vote? You get the picture.

Something called the twenty-fourth amendment to the United States Constitution I believe.

alastair

Amerika wrote: »

Voter fraud is a problem.

Once again - No evidence that it is - after plenty of investigations.

Amerika wrote: »

And gerrymandering, when used correctly to give populations fair representation, is legal.

Gerrymandering is, by definition, not giving populations fair representation. That doesn't necessarily make it illegal, but it's certainly not fair.

Amerika wrote: »

Why do you not see the difference between this and voter fraud?

Why no mention of selective Voter ID laws, intended to stymie legitimate voters? Which is very much a GOP game, and in contrast to phantom voter fraud, have been deemed illegal in US courts?

Overheal

Amerika wrote: »

Again I post the question, don't you want a honest and fair election? If ID is such a problem for so many to provide ID, don't you think it also shouldn't be needed to get social security, welfare, a driving license, a bank account, a mortgage, to fly, etc, etc? Why just such a burden to vote? You get the picture.

You listed privileges not rights.

CMOTDibbler

Amerika wrote: »

Russia and China have been hacking us since the internet began. Do we increase security to a level to keep it from happening? NO!

Of course we do. And I mean everybody, not just the US. You think IT security experts live on fresh air?

It is a problem and it's costing billions. Getting proactive about it is a good thing.

Amerika

Another case of democratic hypocrisy was on stage and display last night. When the topic of the leaked emails came up Hillary pivoted off the question and basically said we, meaning all good Americans, should simply ignore them. Yet the democrats fired Debbie Wasserman-Schultz from her position of chairperson of the DNC because of the email leaks.

alastair

Amerika wrote: »

Is anybody else concerned that Hillary is basically threatening war with Russia

I'm concerned that you've got this bizarre notion in your head from the actual statements made.

alastair

Amerika wrote: »

Another case of democratic hypocrisy was on stage and display last night. When the topic of the leaked emails came up Hillary pivoted off the question and basically said we, meaning all good Americans, should simply ignore them. Yet the democrats fired Debbie Wasserman-Schultz from her position of chairperson of the DNC because of the email leaks.

She resigned. She wasn't fired. And Hillary then employed her. Your point?

Yes Hillary evaded the question, but she never suggested anyone should ignore the emails - that's a straw man argument.

Amerika

Overheal wrote: »

You listed privileges not rights.

Semantics. And since when was social security and welfare a mere privilege? Also, do you favor greater gun laws? Isn’t it a RIGHT, provided in our US Constitution, to keep and bear arms, and SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED? Or should only the RIGHTS you agree with be protected?

L

Amerika wrote: »

It’s not just myth and speculation. It is a serious matter. And nobody can explain to me why we wouldn’t want to have the most fair and honest elections. We require ID for just about everything associated with the government. Why is voting anything different?

Well, there's several issues here. The first is that there are no universally issued photo IDs. This is less of an issue in Ireland as we've about ~70-80% passport coverage anyway. In the US that number is about ~30% and strongly linked to discretionary income. This means that a US voter is overwhelmingly dependent upon things like gun and driving licences - which are again strongly linked to income. So, in other words, requiring photo IDs biases voter eligibility to those who are better off - the opposite of making elections fairer.

On top of that, voter ID is sitting on top of a long historic legacy of measures which effectively made it more difficult for "undesirables" to vote (most notably the poll taxes and "literacy testing" of the Jim Crow era). It's basically got pedigree for people to be going "hey! Fool me once!" about. :P

Amerika wrote: »

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/oct/17/no-voter-fraud-isnt-myth-10-cases-where-its-all-to/

So, context on this, there's ballpark 250 million registered voters in America of which ~40% (~100m) turnout for normal elections and ~60% (150m) turnout for presidential elections. Lets assume for a minute that each of those 10 cases represented 10k fake voters each (which from the article it's fairly obvious that they don't*). That gives us 100k or about 1/10 of a percent of election turnout or 7/100ths of a percent for presidential elections. In contrast, 11% of registered voters (27.5m) lack valid photo ID.

It's pretty clear cut which one of these has a bigger potential impact on elections especially considering that 11% is reportedly made up of 8% of white Americans and 25% of black Americans.

*that said, bump it up to 100k fakes each for a huge 1 million fakes and the point would still stand.

jcsoulinger

alastair wrote: »

But the electorate would still face policies from Bernie that they neither like, nor want. They've been very clear on that, year after year - irrespective of the candidates' personalities. You and I (and indeed many Democrats) might love what he's proposing, but it runs counter to the prevailing attitudes across the country.

I agree with that Bernie's ideas are probably to left leaning to appeal to the majority of the American electorate right now, (I have hopes for the future) but if the other option is the divisive Trump who doesn't even garner the support of his own party, Bernie would destroy him. Can you imagine Bernie in those debates, the only time Trump would even come close to challenging him is on the economy.

alastair

Amerika wrote: »

Semantics. And since when was social security and welfare a mere privilege? Also, do you favor greater gun laws? Isn’t it a RIGHT, provided in our US Constitution, to keep and bear arms, and SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED? Or should only the RIGHTS you agree with be protected?

In a "well regulated militia". That sounds like imposing limitations by my reading, so not a universal right.

Amerika

alastair wrote: »

I'm concerned that you've got this bizarre notion in your head from the actual statements made.

Perhaps you should be concerned that Russia takes these threats seriously and is responding with taunting the US with the biggest military offensive since the Cold War. So what should ya’ll do to back up YOUR contention? Stand on the coast of Britain and shout out to those ten Russian warships as they descend on the English Channel… “Hey Russia, Obama was just kidding!”? I’m confident that will help quell the situation immensely.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/10/19/russia-taunts-us-with-biggest-military-offensive-since-the-cold/

CMOTDibbler

Amerika wrote: »

Semantics. And since when was social security and welfare a mere privilege? Also, do you favor greater gun laws? Isn’t it a RIGHT, provided in our US Constitution, to keep and bear arms, and SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED? Or should only the RIGHTS you agree with be protected?

That's some straw man you've created there. I don't remember anyone talking about gun laws. The 24th amendment does however protect the right to vote without a cost.

alastair

jcsoulinger wrote: »

I agree with that Bernie's ideas are probably to left leaning to appeal to the majority of the American electorate right now, (I have hopes for the future) but if the other option is the divisive Trump who doesn't even garner the support of his own party, Bernie would destroy him. Can you imagine Bernie in those debates, the only time Trump would even come close to challenging him is on the economy.

Bernie would undoubtedly be more articulate, likeable, and a much more moral fellow. He still wouldn't beat Trump though - as people don't want a nice candidate, they want someone who will advocate on behalf of positions they favour. Conservatives are voting for Trump despite being a blowhard fake RINO, because he's not Hillary. They'd do the same for Bernie, except in his case, he'd be that too far to the left for so many more floating voters.

Overheal

Amerika wrote: »

Semantics. And since when was social security and welfare a mere privilege? Also, do you favor greater gun laws? Isn’t it a RIGHT, provided in our US Constitution, to keep and bear arms, and SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED? Or should only the RIGHTS you agree with be protected?

Semantics? Quite important distinctions.

You ave the right to bear arms. You don't need an ID to use a gun on the farm. Nobody is going to come after you. Of course if you want to buy that weapon there should be reasonable restrictions. As Scalia agreed:

"Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment, nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms."

Social security and welfare are taxed/deducted out of all of us and don't really strike me as rights more than earned privileges.

The right to vote should be cost neutral. If states want to make it easy and free to obtain a state ID for those who qualify for one, then they can win the debate on whether ID should be used at the polls.

However that is often not the case at all. For instance state IDs are harder to obtain in minority areas:

Amerika

alastair wrote: »

In a "well regulated militia". That sounds like imposing limitations by my reading, so not a universal right.

The Supreme Court clarified this in District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008). The SCOTUS decided the Second Amendment protects an individual RIGHT to keep and bear arms for self-defense. Don't you go rewriting history on us, now. :P

Overheal

Amerika wrote: »

The Supreme Court clarified this in District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008). The SCOTUS decided the Second Amendment protects an individual RIGHT to keep and bear arms for self-defense. Don't you go rewriting history on us, now. :P

I just quoted Columbia v Heller - and you're cherry picking from it just the part you want to hear

Edit: almost forgot, you don't need ID for a private sale.

alastair

Amerika wrote: »

Perhaps you should be concerned that Russia takes these threats seriously and is responding with taunting the US with the biggest military offensive since the Cold War. So what should ya’ll do to back up YOUR contention? Stand on the coast of Britain and shout out to those ten Russian warships as they descend on the English Channel… “Hey Russia, Obama was just kidding!”? I’m confident that will help quell the situation immensely.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/10/19/russia-taunts-us-with-biggest-military-offensive-since-the-cold/

1. It's not the biggest Russian military offensive since the cold war. Perhaps you might recall a little incident in Chechnya?

2. Putin doesn't take the 'threats' seriously, because no threats have actually been levelled against them.

CMOTDibbler

Amerika wrote: »

Perhaps you should be concerned that Russia takes these threats seriously and is responding with taunting the US with the biggest military offensive since the Cold War. So what should ya’ll do to back up YOUR contention? Stand on the coast of Britain and shout out to those ten Russian warships as they descend on the English Channel… “Hey Russia, Obama was just kidding!”? I’m confident that will help quell the situation immensely.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/10/19/russia-taunts-us-with-biggest-military-offensive-since-the-cold/

Russia has been playing those games for a long time now. Have you forgotten the 'lost' Russian bombers and other aircraft that were flying towards the UK last year and earlier this year, that had to be escorted away by RAF Tornados?

Are you suggesting that the best thing to do is to ignore them and let them escalate this kind of micky waving until it gets serious?

alastair

Amerika wrote: »

The Supreme Court clarified this in District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008). The SCOTUS decided the Second Amendment protects an individual RIGHT to keep and bear arms for self-defense. Don't you go rewriting history on us, now. :P

Let's see what the Supreme Court determine down the line. I'm just telling you what the drafters of the constitution intended.

Amerika

Overheal wrote: »

Semantics? Quite important distinctions.

You ave the right to bear arms. You don't need an ID to use a gun on the farm. Nobody is going to come after you. Of course if you want to buy that weapon there should be reasonable restrictions. As Scalia agreed:

"Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment, nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms."

Social security and welfare are taxed/deducted out of all of us and don't really strike me as rights more than earned privileges.

The right to vote should be cost neutral. If states want to make it easy and free to obtain a state ID for those who qualify for one, then they can win the debate on whether ID should be used at the polls.

However that is often not the case at all. For instance state IDs are harder to obtain in minority areas:

Minority areas as some of the most depressed zones of America and highly reliant on many forms of government assistance such as social security, welfare, medicare, medicaid, and food stamps, etc... all of which require valid ID. Your position makes no sense.

Here in PA we instituted Voter ID laws, and made it possible to get ID without any cost. Yet the courts still shot it down... well the democrat appointed judges, anyway.

Overheal

Amerika wrote: »

Minority areas as some of the most depressed zones of America and highly reliant on many forms of government assistance such as social security, welfare, medicare, medicaid, and food stamps, etc... all of which require valid ID. Your position makes no sense.

Your argument is orhtogonal: the populaces reliance on welfare (which you're just sweepingly saying "all minority areas are full of scroungers") is not directly linked to the ability of the local population to obtain a state ID. In fact it may just support a different argument: that those who are in need in these areas have a harder time obtaining help than in those who are need inside better serviced communities. But it has no direct linkage to the availability of ID.

alastair

Amerika wrote: »

Here in PA we instituted Voter ID laws, and made it possible to get ID without any cost. Yet the courts still shot it down... well the democrat appointed judges, anyway.

Because they were illegal. Bit rich to go crying about court decisions when you roll them out to make your own point.

L

Amerika wrote: »

Minority areas as some of the most depressed zones of America and highly reliant on many forms of government assistance such as social security, welfare, medicare, medicaid, and food stamps, etc... all of which require valid ID. Your position makes no sense.

Here in PA we instituted Voter ID laws, and made it possible to get ID without any cost. Yet the courts still shot it down... well the democrat appointed judges, anyway.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/jul/18/voter-id-poor-black-americans

Some good links in that about why his position is actually pretty solid - poor areas have less access to ID.

jcsoulinger

alastair wrote: »

Bernie would undoubtedly be more articulate, likeable, and a much more moral fellow. He still wouldn't beat Trump though - as people don't want a nice candidate, they want someone who will advocate on behalf of positions they favour. Conservatives are voting for Trump despite being a blowhard fake RINO, because he's not Hillary. They'd do the same for Bernie, except in his case, he'd be that too far to the left for so many more floating voters.

Again I believe that given the options of Trump or Bernie the majority of floaters would pick Bernie. Its all hypothetical sadly now, Im gonna leave it at that as it seems like a pointless argument at this stage.

Amerika

alastair wrote: »

Let's see what the Supreme Court determine down the line. I'm just telling you what the drafters of the constitution intended.

We know what they intended. They intended that when our country needed to utilize the militia, which are ordinary citizens... that those citizens needed the right to keep and bear their own guns in order to become a well regulated militia. You seem to keep wanting to change US history.

And yes, the Supreme Court could very well rule against the US Constitution, and soon as Democrats pack it with ideologs that care more about politics than they do the law, our Constitution, and the people.

CMOTDibbler

Amerika wrote: »

Here in PA we instituted Voter ID laws, and made it possible to get ID without any cost. Yet the courts still shot it down... well the democrat appointed judges, anyway.

That's a neat pivot there. Left out a few factoids didn't you?

Judge Bernard L. McGinley noted that required alternative voter IDs were available only through 71 PennDOT Drivers Licensing Centers across the state. Five of the 71 DLCs are located in Philadelphia, nine counties have no DLCs at all, and DLCs have limited hours: in nine counties they are open only one day per week, and in 13 counties they are open only two days per week. The court ruled that the Pennsylvania Department of State provided too little access, no financial support to provide IDs to those without access, and no alternatives to obtaining the required IDs. Judge McGinley found that this leaves about half of Pennsylvania without DLCs for five days a week, imposing a significant barrier to obtaining Pennsylvania's "free ID".

Amerika

alastair wrote: »

Because they were illegal. Bit rich to go crying about court decisions when you roll them out to make your own point.

Please show me how they were illegal. And if access were expanded, would you be alright with Voter ID laws? And how many people over 18 and want to vote do you think don't have ID? That (quantity) seems to be the standard for the argument that there is no voter fraud.

alastair

Amerika wrote: »

We know what they intended. They intended that when our country needed to utilize the militia, which are ordinary citizens... that those citizens needed the right to keep and bear their own guns in order to become a well regulated militia. You seem to keep wanting to change US history.

And yes, the Supreme Court could very well rule against the US Constitution, and soon as Democrats pack it with ideologs that care more about politics than they do the law, our Constitution, and the people.

I'm not looking to change any history. If the need for regulated civilian militias is historic, then the right to bear arms for such purposes is also historic. You've had an army for a while now.

Overheal

Amerika wrote: »

Please show me how they were illegal.

A state judge ruled in January that the law, passed in 2012, violated the state constitution by imposing an unreasonable burden on the right to vote. The court found no evidence the law was necessary either to prevent fraud or to keep public confidence in the fairness of the election process.

“During the trial we heard the stories of numerous voters throughout the state who, despite their best efforts, were unable to get the identification that the now-invalidated voter ID law required of them to vote,” Marian Schneider, a senior attorney with the Advancement Project, a civil rights group that challenged the law, said in a statement. “This is not how a democracy should work. Today’s decision is a victory for keeping Pennsylvania elections free, fair and accessible for all voters.”

“We commend the governor for not continuing to push a dangerous and unnecessary law that would disenfranchise hundreds of thousands of voters,” added Witold Walczak, the legal director for the ACLU of Pennsylvania, which also opposed the law.

http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/pennsylvania-voter-id-law-dead-and-buried

alastair

Amerika wrote: »

Please show me how they were illegal. And if access were expanded, would you be alright with Voter ID laws?

You think that the Judge was making his decision on issues other than legality?

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/article/why-voter-id-laws-arent-really-about-fraud/

Overheal

Amerika wrote: »

would you be alright with Voter ID laws?

It has to pass several litmus tests to even be considered:

1. The law is necessary either to prevent fraud or to keep public confidence in the fairness of the election process.
   
2. Subsequently, that there is sufficient evidence of both existing voter fraud and a lack of public confidence.
   
3. It does not impose unreasonable burden on the right to vote.

In the case of PA, it sounds like civil liberty groups were sufficiently able to defeat the law in question based on these merits.

Amerika

alastair wrote: »

You think that the Judge was making his decision on issues other than legality?

Absolutely!

CMOTDibbler

Amerika wrote: »

Please show me how they were illegal. And if access were expanded, would you be alright with Voter ID laws?

Illegal because they weren't without cost for a significant portion of the population. Therefore contrary to the 24th amendment.

The thing is, there is technology available to make ID cost neutral. I know it's not the same thing but the method is interesting. The new Irish/EU credit card passport can be applied for by using your own smartphone. Take your own photo and apply without moving out of your house. Posted to you within three days.

Now that does cost money and requires you to have a full passport as well, but it's not beyond the wit of a state like PA or anywhere else to come up with a system just like that.

alastair

Amerika wrote: »

Absolutely!

A position in line with Trump's selective position on democracy.

Overheal

alastair wrote: »

A position in line with Trump's selective position on democracy.

'Was one of the judges one of those damn minorities? Bah!'

Amerika

Overheal wrote: »

In the case of PA, it sounds like civil liberty groups were sufficiently able to defeat the law in question based on these merits.

I think we could both agree there are, at times, abuses of the law. I contend this is one of them.

Pennsylvania Governor Tom Corbett wouldn’t appeal the ruling striking Voter ID law. Why do you think he then lost his reelection bid?

Overheal

Amerika wrote: »

I think we could both agree there are, at times, abuses of the law. I contend this is one of them.

Pennsylvania Governor Tom Corbett wouldn’t appeal the ruling striking Voter ID law. Why do you think he then lost his reelection bid?

Because he didn't tow the party line. Conservatives react very virulently to actions of common sense moderation.

Plus according to the article I posted he was already facing a tough race before he turned down the law.

alastair

Amerika wrote: »

Pennsylvania Governor Tom Corbett wouldn’t appeal the ruling striking Voter ID law. Why do you think he then lost his reelection bid?

Because of matters unrelated to voter ID laws?

http://wnep.com/2015/01/18/looking-back-on-the-last-four-years-of-governor-tom-corbett/

Billy86

pumpkin4life wrote: »

So as long as I'm not revealing my identity on this thing, I've no problem with that. Deal.

Hats off to you for taking up the offer! Honestly though, it's good to see. I reckon what might be easiest is if the loser makes the donation online, takes a screenshot, and in paint just use the black brush tool to erase any personal info that might be on it, and add it as a post in an attachment.

marienbad

Amerika wrote: »

Voter fraud is a problem. And gerrymandering, when used correctly to give populations fair representation, is legal. Why do you not see the difference between this and voter fraud?

But study after study has shown that voter fraud is not a problem .

How on earth can gerrymandering be uses correctly ?????

Overheal

Probably the best moment of the debate right here.

He just sits there like a trained specimen and proudly accepts her analysis that he's a self-absorbed narcissist who think everything is rigged when he doesn't get his way. He has no credibility on the subject of fraud.

Amerika

This morning Joe Scarborough took on the media for freaking out over Trump's response when asked if he would accept the results of the election. Watch it if you can. It’s classic, and he succinctly takes the media to task for their faux outrage.

https://mediamatters.org/video/2016/10/20/joe-scarborough-lashes-out-media-defends-trumps-refusal-say-whether-hed-accept-election-results/213978

Billy86

Amerika wrote: »

This morning Joe Scarborough took on the media for freaking out over Trump's response when asked if he would accept the results of the election. Watch it if you can. It’s classic, and he succinctly takes the media to task for their faux outrage.

https://mediamatters.org/video/2016/10/20/joe-scarborough-lashes-out-media-defends-trumps-refusal-say-whether-hed-accept-election-results/213978

Joe Scarborough both explicitly and inadvertently calls election rigging/fraud claims a lie about a minute into this video and goes out of his way to do so. Gotta love that double thinking!

alastair

Amerika wrote: »

This morning Joe Scarborough took on the media for freaking out over Trump's response when asked if he would accept the results of the election. Watch it if you can. It’s classic, and he succinctly takes the media to task for their faux outrage.

https://mediamatters.org/video/2016/10/20/joe-scarborough-lashes-out-media-defends-trumps-refusal-say-whether-hed-accept-election-results/213978

Except it's not faux outrage at all. He refuses to acknowledge that the candidate holding this position ahead of the vote is a new, and clearly distinct dynamic, and not equivalent to an Al Gore supporter expressing doubt about an outcome that Al Gore has already accepted. If it's classic anything, it's classic evasion of the specific concern being expressed.