The Third & Final US Presidential Debate

flogthebog

most fascinating part of the 'debate' i thought was trump had paid no taxes for all his billions and all his industries. I can't remember if it was last year that 'Hilarious' mentioned . I want his accountant

Itssoeasy

I'm 15 minutes in and trump seems to be restrained and has answered kind of the question on the Supreme Court.

I love the question Chris Wallace asked and the way it wasn't just "supreme court discuss." There was depth to it. I like Chris wallace. You could tell it's not his first picnic.

Overheal

Itssoeasy wrote: »

I'm 15 minutes in and trump seems to be restrained and has answered kind of the question on the Supreme Court.

I love the question Chris Wallace asked and the way it wasn't just "supreme court discuss." There was depth to it. I like Chris wallace. You could tell it's not his first picnic.

About another 10 minutes before he returns to shouting and interrupting

Itssoeasy

Bigily ? Trump has said that three times. I don't know what that is.

Itssoeasy

Thank you sez Donald.

Itssoeasy

People are already coming from Syria Donald. They are coming in from Jordan.

Itssoeasy

No puppet. No puppet.

flogthebog

Itssoeasy wrote: »

Bigily ? Trump has said that three times. I don't know what that is.

If you are a true Donald Trump fan you must understand bigily. its a fundamental difference between between both candidates

Itssoeasy

Oh here we go. Getting testy now.

Overheal

Itssoeasy wrote: »

Oh here we go. Getting testy now.

...I don't think you should liveblog watching of a recorded debate :P

SimonTemplar

tomwaterford wrote: »

I don't believe Clinton should be critised for bill Clinton actions

But I don't think she should ride his coat tails either

I pretty sure the reason she has never attacked Trump for mentioning Bill in these debates is exactly that - she wants to bring up some of Bill's achievements in her favour.

It would be very easy for her to say "I'm running for president, not my husband" but she wants to use him as a positive.

Itssoeasy

Overheal wrote: »

Itssoeasy wrote: »

Oh here we go. Getting testy now.

...I don't think you should liveblog watching of a recorded debate :P

Well I didn't watch it live so I'm reacting in real time to my watching.

Itssoeasy

Just finished watching it. Trump didn't do much to help his numbers and image but he didn't hurt himself much. I think having chris Wallace helped make it not a complete and utter mess.

CMOTDibbler

Itssoeasy wrote: »

Just finished watching it. Trump didn't do much to help his numbers and image but he didn't hurt himself much. I think having chris Wallace helped make it not a complete and utter mess.

He doesn't seem to think so himself:

It's funny in a kind of peeping through your fingers in horror way, that he thinks getting the questions in advance is what's needed to be president. It doesn't seem to occur to him that knowing this stuff already is what qualifies you for the job.

Zubeneschamali

jcsoulinger wrote: »

Again I believe that given the options of Trump or Bernie the majority of floaters would pick Bernie.

A majority would pick Inanimate Carbon Rod ahead of Trump.

It will all turn out to be a reality TV show. It's the only thing that makes sense.

Carcharodon

Amerika wrote: »

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?

Of all the crazy things you say on here this has to be one of the most infuriating stances you and many republicans take.
It has been proven over and over and over that there is no problem with voter fraud, many stats and facts to back this up but the most horrific thing about this is that you seem to think it's ok to prevent people to vote just to gain an advantage in the elections.
To me this is one just inexcusable as the whole basis of America is to spread democracy and give everyone a vote, everything possible should be done to get people to the voting booth

Overheal

Carcharodon wrote: »

Of all the crazy things you say on here this has to be one of the most infuriating stances you and many republicans take.
It has been proven over and over and over that there is no problem with voter fraud, many stats and facts to back this up but the most horrific thing about this is that you seem to think it's ok to prevent people to vote just to gain an advantage in the elections.
To me this is one just inexcusable as the whole basis of America is to spread democracy and give everyone a vote, everything possible should be done to get people to the voting booth

Have you heard about #RepealThe19th ?

It's depressing how far backwards conservatives would take democracy for a short term gain.

nomadchocolate

CMOTDibbler wrote: »

He doesn't seem to think so himself:

It's funny in a kind of peeping through your fingers in horror way, that he thinks getting the questions in advance is what's needed to be president. It doesn't seem to occur to him that knowing this stuff already is what qualifies you for the job.

Neither candidate should get the questions in advance or they both should get them in advance. I don't know how you can be so dismissive.

Hilary's answers were nice, but they were prepared soundbites.

Neither are good candidates for America. Hilary is corrupt. Trump is wild. Hopefully this will be a tipping point for political reform in America (won't happen)

CMOTDibbler

nomadchocolate wrote: »

Neither candidate should get the questions in advance or they both should get them in advance. I don't know how you can be so dismissive.

Hilary's answers were nice, but they were prepared soundbites.

This is a claim by Trump. I've seen no backup for it. And in view of the many false claims and lies by Trump, why should I believe this one?

Amerika

Carcharodon wrote: »

Of all the crazy things you say on here this has to be one of the most infuriating stances you and many republicans take.
It has been proven over and over and over that there is no problem with voter fraud, many stats and facts to back this up but the most horrific thing about this is that you seem to think it's ok to prevent people to vote just to gain an advantage in the elections.
To me this is one just inexcusable as the whole basis of America is to spread democracy and give everyone a vote, everything possible should be done to get people to the voting booth

Crazy things? Why is it those on the Left only have tolerance for opinions that align with their own, and everything else is to be ridiculed and vilified?

Democrats have no problem whatsoever requiring ID for just about everything, except voting. Common sense dictates that the reason is because when voter fraud happens, it benefits democrats. I don’t understand why we wouldn’t want our voting system to be as secure and honest a system possible.

As to the comment about doing everything possible to get everyone to the voting booth, I disagree. If you don’t know the policies and ramifications of the people you are voting for, I would prefer you don’t vote. Blind faith does nobody any good.

As for gerrymandering, it only make sense to draw a map where the person you elect to office to represent you is of like mind for the vast majority of the area he/she represents. Not such an alien concept, in my opinion.

Overheal

You're repeating the same argument as a few days ago. I may as well just copy and paste my responses.

InTheTrees

Amerika wrote: »

Democrats have no problem whatsoever requiring ID for just about everything, except voting. Common sense dictates that the reason is because when voter fraud happens, it benefits democrats.

Common sense? Yikes. Common sense wouldnt make such an obviously false claim and then invent motives.

ECO_Mental

Amerika wrote: »

Democrats have no problem whatsoever requiring ID for just about everything, except voting. Common sense dictates that the reason is because when voter fraud happens, it benefits democrats. I don’t understand why we wouldn’t want our voting system to be as secure and honest a system possible.

If you want the voting system to be secure and honest then you would not have a problem with anybody buying a gun in America to produce ID as well and that includes gun shows and online. Common sense really, would you have a problem with this Amerika??

Carcharodon

Overheal wrote: »

Carcharodon wrote: »

Of all the crazy things you say on here this has to be one of the most infuriating stances you and many republicans take.
It has been proven over and over and over that there is no problem with voter fraud, many stats and facts to back this up but the most horrific thing about this is that you seem to think it's ok to prevent people to vote just to gain an advantage in the elections.
To me this is one just inexcusable as the whole basis of America is to spread democracy and give everyone a vote, everything possible should be done to get people to the voting booth

Have you heard about #RepealThe19th ?

It's depressing how far backwards conservatives would take democracy for a short term gain.

Yea, saw that alright, hopefully just a few from the basket being loud on twitter. Horrifying to think that anyone would seriously consider this

CMOTDibbler

Amerika wrote: »

Democrats have no problem whatsoever requiring ID for just about everything, except voting. Common sense dictates that the reason is because when voter fraud happens, it benefits democrats. I don’t understand why we wouldn’t want our voting system to be as secure and honest a system possible.

Common sense tells me that it's because of the 24th amendment. It's not beyond the wit of state governments to come up with a simple and cost neutral method of producing voter IDs.

Yet somehow, they seem to fail at this simple task.

marienbad

Amerika wrote: »

As for gerrymandering, it only make sense to draw a map where the person you elect to office to represent you is of like mind for the vast majority of the area he/she represents. Not such an alien concept, in my opinion.

You know gerrymandering is about creating boundaries in order to maintain a minority in power .

If you agree with this you should be deeply ashamed of yourself and to even defend it in what is still , despite its great faults , the greatest and longest experiment in democracy the world has ever and is ever likely to see is a betrayal of the very Constitution you so frequently espouse .

We know about gerrymandering in this country .

Amerika

marienbad wrote: »

You know gerrymandering is about creating boundaries in order to maintain a minority in power .

If you agree with this you should be deeply ashamed of yourself and to even defend it in what is still , despite its great faults , the greatest and longest experiment in democracy the world has ever and is ever likely to see is a betrayal of the very Constitution you so frequently espouse .

We know about gerrymandering in this country .

When used for the purpose I noted, gerrymandering is a good thing. And both Republicans and Democrats do it. Democrats are just pissed at the current moment because Republicans have been better at it. And I don't think I need to be ashamed of myself in the least bit, nor do I see it as some horrible betrayal of our Constitution. If anything is serves to have people of like mind represent the majority opinion of the area drawn. It goes by population limits, so if it is heavy republican in one place it will be offset by heavy democrat in another (if there is a balance of people in parties). If it was such a terrible thing it would have been outlawed long time ago, and we have had many changes of power between the parties over the years.

InTheTrees

Amerika wrote: »

When used for the purpose I noted, gerrymandering is a good thing.

No, Amerika. Seriously you need to use the googles on this one.

Gerrymandering is not a good thing in a democracy whether your side is doing it or the other side.

alastair

InTheTrees wrote: »

No, Amerika. Seriously you need to use the googles on this one.

I'm afraid this has to go in the crazy things list. Vilification is really the only reasonable response.