First presidential debate - September 26: Trump vs Hillary

[I Push Buttons]

So basically, you claim half HATE her, then the best you can come up with is that 36% of Democrats view her unfavorably AS AN ALL TIME LOW.

Damn those goal posts moved FAST.

Dude don't mention goalposts or Zenkai will accuse you of attacking him and declare himself the automatic victor of the argument.

[Endus]

Ok. Thanks for the clarification. I hope you'll show me the same courtesy in the future.

Moving on, how was Trump's response to his 1973 lawsuit a tacit admission of wrongdoing. If you've already made that case in this forum and would rather not restate it, could you please point me to that post? Thanks.

Just in short form, he had to agree to stop discriminating, to publicly announce and advertise that he would no longer be discriminating, and deliberately offer preferential leasing to minorities to offset the discriminatory practices he'd been engaging in.

Plus there's that he was sued a few years later because he failed to follow through.

I made a broad statement and it wasn't far off, a lot of her voters hate her.

You misspelled "made a specific claim and then failed to provide anything even remotely close to supporting evidence to back it up".

- - - Updated - - -

I'm sure its lower now since the email leak.

Then I'm sure you can back that up, since I'm sure you wouldn't just keep making up new bullshit.

[Cthulhu 2020]

Re-read what you just posted. That's some preconceived notions right there. "She was healthy and looked presidential, therefore it looked fake". That sounds like someone who wasn't ready to accept that she could legitimately look like a healthy, presidential candidate.

- - - Updated - - -



Citation needed.

You're going to have to grill him for 10 pages before he'll post a single link, and even then it will still be wrong.

[zenkai]

That is dated 4/16/16...am I missing something here?

EDIT: Ah...I see what you're doing. Much has changed since then...just saying.

like the DNC email link?

[Breccia]

To me it seems pretty obvious that 'a lot' (maybe not half) of Clinton voters actually will only do so because she isn't Trump

See? SEE? THIS is how you phrase an argument! You don't promise what you can't provide!

[zenkai]

Just in short form, he had to agree to stop discriminating, to publicly announce and advertise that he would no longer be discriminating, and deliberately offer preferential leasing to minorities to offset the discriminatory practices he'd been engaging in.

Plus there's that he was sued a few years later because he failed to follow through.



You misspelled "made a specific claim and then failed to provide anything even remotely close to supporting evidence to back it up".

- - - Updated - - -



Then I'm sure you can back that up, since I'm sure you wouldn't just keep making up new bullshit.

Isn't calling out spelling mistakes (even made up ones) against the forum rules?

[Bakis]

Naaw those cute emails and 238 hearings.
Thats the best the Trumpers can try?

[Endus]

Isn't calling out spelling mistakes (even made up ones) against the forum rules?

Attacking someone over their grammar is against the rules.

Pointing out that you're making stuff up and have literally no grounds for doing so, thankfully, is not.

[zenkai]

I see it is, posted links to back up my claim and people still deny lol damn partisans.

[Breccia]

It is never the business' fault to decide to take less profit to give their employees a chance to live on their wage or benefits.

If I'm reading this correctly, you shop at Costco.

[zenkai]

Attacking someone over their grammar is against the rules.

Pointing out that you're making stuff up and have literally no grounds for doing so, thankfully, is not.

Good thing, half the people who reply to you would be in trouble

[Breccia]

I see it is, posted links to back up my claim and people still deny lol damn partisans.

You objectively didn't, and we're not just saying partisan, we're saying you suck at debating.

[Deleted]

Trump accuses Hilliary of creating ISIS. He literally points her out, her body language is the tell that he has gotten to her!

It starts when Trump brings up ISIS. He points at Hilliary and she loses here shit. Body language and the ln get Lester to fade the topic.

Hillary supporters care to defend her for this?

Btw Trump won he just didnt finish her off.

[Teaklog]

The old notion that it is never the businesses fault. They want to say its government's fault that people go part-time or no health insurance. It is never the business' fault to decide to take less profit to give their employees a chance to live on their wage or benefits.

Business, by definition, can never decide to take less profit to give their employees a chance to live on their wage, unless that will in the long run bring more profits to the business. If you are a manager and not maximizing the owners of the business's wealth, you can be removed from your position by the shareholders. Had been to court on quite a few occasions. I remember Ford had a similar issue, with the judge ruling just that.

The entire purpose of the business is to make money for the shareholders. To prevent the shareholders from liability, managers are hired to run the business to make the shareholders money. This is part of the reason unions exist--they fit into the logic of a way to help workers, while the managers of the business can still perform their duty. Its harder for the government to mandate a higher minimum wage because of so many economic issues we would spend ages going back and forth, and unless you're prepared to do some analysis I'm not willing to have that debate :/

Its never the businesses fault because the structure of business prevents it from being their fault. Thats part of why businesses are structured the way they are.

This is with regarding a corporation*

[DocSavageFan]

I made a broad statement and it wasn't far off, a lot of her voters hate her.

Hyperbole doesn't help your case. That said...it's beyond me why so many progressives support her in spite of her reckless neocon foreign policy accentuated by a proven track record. She makes Dick Cheney look like Mother Teresa! I imagine that the question of whether or not Trump was really against the Iraq War before it started is much more relevant in their world. Who gives a damn if Hillary voted for it, supported it, and defended her vote for years afterward....minor details. Go figure.

[May90]

I'm sure its lower now since the email leak.

"I'm sure" is a very strong argument.

[Merkava]

Just in short form, he had to agree to stop discriminating, to publicly announce and advertise that he would no longer be discriminating, and deliberately offer preferential leasing to minorities to offset the discriminatory practices he'd been engaging in.

Plus there's that he was sued a few years later because he failed to follow through.

In reverse order, being sued later isn't evidence of a tacit admission of anything.

To your main point, are sure that Trump had to "agree to stop discriminating," or did Trump have to "agree to not discriminate." Those two are very different. The first one, you're right, implies that he had been discriminating in the past. The second one doesn't. Which is it, and do you have any evidence to support it?

[Deleted]

@2:10 she tries to get the subject changed.

[Paranoid Android]

Business, by definition, can never decide to take less profit to give their employees a chance to live on their wage, unless that will in the long run bring more profits to the business. If you are a manager and not maximizing the owners of the business's wealth, you can be removed from your position by the shareholders. Had been to court on quite a few occasions. I remember Ford had a similar issue, with the judge ruling just that.

The entire purpose of the business is to make money for the shareholders. To prevent the shareholders from liability, managers are hired to run the business to make the shareholders money. This is the reason unions exist. They fit into the logic of a way to help workers while the managers of the business can still perform their duty. Its harder for the government to mandate a higher minimum wage because of so many economic issues we would spend ages going back and forth, and unless you're prepared to do some analysis I'm not willing to have that debate :/

This is with regarding a corporation*

Yeah I can use this as in the same breath of when businesses ask for tax cuts. You think businesses are going to hire more people with the tax cuts they get? No. It will go to the shareholders and executives running the company.

I know we are speaking more on large publicly traded companies, which I find a huge fault in that system. Namely the CEO looking out for shareholders, in turn creating a huge money chest for himself. Again laying off employees, paying them less or not providing benefits.

[Endus]

In reverse order, being sued later isn't evidence of a tacit admission of anything.

To your main point, are sure that Trump had to "agree to stop discriminating," or did Trump have to "agree to not discriminate." Those two are very different. The first one, you're right, implies that he had been discriminating in the past. The second one doesn't. Which is it, and do you have any evidence to support it?

It's pretty darn close to the former; https://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...160_story.html

They might be able to squeak by on technicalities, but cases of that sort were typically settled through voluntary actions; the Justice Department's said they had more than enough evidence to pursue the case, had they so wished.