First presidential debate - September 26: Trump vs Hillary

[Edge-]

Well some are.
First is a Bernie quote being fact checked:

Then a trump quote:
Either like a half million African Americans got a job in the span off a year, or they are, Whats the word? - Biased?

Probably because Bernie and Trump are talking about two different, but similar, statistics, something you would know if you read both articles : )

[jimboa24]

So should we take the rest of what you say at face value or assume that you're being hyperbolic at all times?

By the way, if there's no scenario where you'd vote for the Clintons then you'd still vote for a nuclear holocaust before voting for Hillary. But, of course, you're obviously just being hyperbolic again and I'll assume that you only feel a mild distaste for the Clintons.

Hyperbole is a poor choice of rhetoric to use when you're trying to discuss your opinions with people. Are you new to intelligent conversation or something?

Yes, because it's completely binary, you're either 100% totally serious all the time, or you're never serious and should never be taken at face-value.

Stop being so Goddamn obtuse, it's fucking obnoxious.

[gusty jack]

Once again, they aren't checking facts. In fact every "fact" that was "checked" during the debate last night was utter bullshit. That's spin, not fact.

You can't even reason with people this delusional.

Once they think proven, objective facts are bullshit then all you can really do is shake your head. It's not surprising though, since the GOP has long held a firmly anti-education and anti-science stance. How interesting that the better educated people become the more they tend to move towards holding liberal ideals.

[Daerio]

So Trump didn't say that Climate Change was a Chinese hoax?
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-me...nge-chinese-h/

O-Oh.

And he didn't say that he would try to negotiate the national debt?

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/07/us...less.html?_r=0

Well, this isn't looking good.

http://www.npr.org/2016/09/26/495115...dential-debate

Enjoy.

Did the moderator comment on even one of those things? I'm pretty sure he didn't, so we're not even talking about the same fucking thing.

[Dextroden]

Why is it that this concept of Congress keeping the president in check never seems to apply to Hillary?

And here we go. No questioning the narrative that Trump will do everything evil.

I never said Clinton wouldn't have them in the way. So, that's useless noise quoting me to say that.

Now, answer. How is Trump going to do all the evil things people claim he will do? I guess he'll have them all killed.

[Deleted]

I'm not part of the Hillary campaign, so I can't. That's up to them to figure out. But trying to connect her stance on a no-fly zone over Syria to her wanting to start a war with Russia is, quite frankly, completely insane. There is no direct link between the two unless you assume, and to assume this you would need to ignore Hillary's career and really all of reality, that she'll just blindly stick to the policy and start shooting down Russian bombers/fighters.

Well no its not, because for all intents and purposes, she is suggesting a No-fly over what effectively is Russian territory - Declaring a No Fly is declaring war upon another sovereign state, and that state is defended by its Ally.

[Belize]

Well some are.
First is a Bernie quote being fact checked:

Then a trump quote:
Either like a half million African Americans got a job in the span off a year, or they are, Whats the word? - Biased?

Did you look at the ranges?

Noticed that 17 to 20, and 16 to 24 is not the same range?

Many people get jobs once they hit 21-ish.

[Edge-]

Well no its not, because for all intents and purposes, she is suggesting a No-fly over what effectively is Russian territory - Declaring a No Fly is declaring war upon another sovereign state, and that state is defended by its Ally.

And again, how do you connect the dots between her wanting a no-fly zone to her wanting to start a war with Russia? Because that's the kind of leap in logic Alex Jones makes, and you shouldn't aim to emulate Alex Jones and his particular brand of complete and utter insanity.

[Belize]

Did the moderator comment on even one of those things? I'm pretty sure he didn't, so we're not even talking about the same fucking thing.

*sigh* alright fine.

AHEM.

Lester said that stop and frisk was unconstitutional and Trump said, and I quote exactly, "No, you're wrong. It went before a judge who was a very against police judge.

(Hint, Lester wasn't wrong)

[Yvaelle]

Why is it that this concept of Congress keeping the president in check never seems to apply to Hillary?

Hillary has her witch magic to enchant all the other politicians, or something

The reality is that Hillary is centre-right, and so are most of both the Democratic and establishment Republicans - so if they can get one of their own through from either party they will have a majority of The Establishment backing her. For the establishment politicians - being democrat or republican just determines what sort of talking points you use when you occasionally go back to your own state and give a few stump speeches for the sake of appearance.

Then you return to Washington and return to handing over the wealth of nations to corporations and private interests in exchange for petty political favors or just outright bribes (euphemistically called "Campaign contributions").

There is a legitimate argument to make that while Congress serves as a check and balance against people like Trump, it does not succeed against people like Hillary - because it's not the alternate party standing unified against their rival party - the real dividing line in Washington is Establishment vs. (Lunatic) Fringe candidates.

Congress could counterbalance Trump, but it would likely agree with Hillary. It opposed Obama when he wanted to do anything big and interesting, it agreed with him when he did whatever Congress wanted. He got lots of stuff through, it was just perpetually watered down until it suited Congresses agenda.

Honestly I'm more afraid of a corrupt congress, than I am of a lunatic-tyrant as president. Congress has grown too powerful, IMO.

Fact checkers, who simply check facts, are biased.

Of course.

Reality has a well-known liberal bias - so yea - pointing to reality, or "facts" as you biased realists like to call them - is just flooding the neo-conservative surrealists with your bias. From their perspective, the clocks are melting, Hillary rides a broomstick into the night, and giraffes are giving free harmonica lessons down by the pier.

[gusty jack]

Yes, because it's completely binary, you're either 100% totally serious all the time, or you're never serious and should never be taken at face-value.

Stop being an obtuse ass, it's fucking obnoxious.

Twice now you've said you'd never vote for Clinton under any circumstances, but also alluded to there being circumstances in which you'd vote for her. The only examples you gave were extremely hyperbolic, but you seem pretty zealous about it.

Overall I'd say that if you're going to get really mad when someone questions your unclear choice of rhetoric in a discussion it probably wasn't a great strategy to have used in the first place.

[Daerio]

*sigh* alright fine.

AHEM.

Lester said that stop and frisk was unconstitutional and Trump said, and I quote exactly, "No, you're wrong. It went before a judge who was a very against police judge.

(Hint, Lester wasn't wrong)

It was ruled unconstitutional, but then the ruling was vacated by a superior court and buried, so Trump was exactly right, though not eloquently said.

[Lenonis]

And here we go. No questioning the narrative that Trump will do everything evil.

I never said Clinton wouldn't have them in the way. So, that's useless noise quoting me to say that.

Now, answer. How is Trump going to do all the evil things people claim he will do? I guess he'll have them all killed.

Oh get off it. I've said in the past that this election doesn't likely mean as much as people think given the split congress. Personally the SCOTUS up for grabs is where the real criticality of the election is at, also a point I've made before.

But in the discussion it was stated that an insane Trump would be restrained by Congress, but Hillary would try to get things done and that's terrible because of her policy stances. The implication is that Congress would allow Clinton to pass her agenda -- really strange given the GOP controlled house and Senate -- with that likely to remain unchanged -- especially the house.

So you have a GOP house and a GOP Senate that would restrain Trump but allow Clinton free reign. Whole bunch of nonsense.

[Dextroden]

So no person can fact check because no person is unbiased... we might as well use whatever numbers and statistics we want because... everyone is biased...

I'll start... People that support Trump have an IQ in the single digits...


You might disagree with that "fact" but you are obviously biased.

Clinton essentially said that and everyone defended it as a hard fact. You included.

Just saying.

[Deleted]

Probably because Bernie and Trump are talking about two different, but similar, statistics, something you would know if you read both articles : )

No, they are parsing his comments in a biased manner - Bernie got

His terminology was off, but the numbers he used check out, and his general point was correct -- that in an apples-to-apples comparison, African-

There was two ways to parse his comments - Either assume that in a speech exact economical definitions were used, or not.
In one case, they interpreted the comment, and understood what was meant, in the other, they went for the most autistic interpretation possible and declared a point they had said was correct before to be false.
because Trump used incorrect lingo - That Bernie did too.

[Lenonis]

There is a legitimate argument to make that while Congress serves as a check and balance against people like Trump, it does not succeed against people like Hillary - because it's not the alternate party standing unified against their rival party - the real dividing line in Washington is Establishment vs. (Lunatic) Fringe candidates.

Eh...I'd agree with you when it comes to the senate, but adamantly disagree when it comes to the house. The House is chock full of fringe candidates. And given the GOP control of the house it's really really REALLY hard to see them going along with Hillary's agenda to any degree. It'll be Obama level obstruction if not worse.

[Garnier Fructis]

It was ruled unconstitutional, but then the ruling was vacated by a superior court and buried, so Trump was exactly right.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/23/ny...sk-ruling.html

The city had sought to have Judge Scheindlin’s ruling vacated, citing questions about her impartiality. But on Friday the appeals court declined the request, effectively saying the appeal process should run its course. The appeals court added that the city could renew its request later as part of the full appeal.

November (after October).

[gusty jack]

Now, answer. How is Trump going to do all the evil things people claim he will do?.

How is Trump going to do anything he claims he'll do?

He's going to make rich people help out poorer people by giving them tax breaks, and they'll do it because "they're good guys and I know them".

He's going to make China "deal" with North Korea.

He's going to take the oil out of the Middle East when the US troops leave.

None of these things make any sense, nor do they actually have any plans that he will speak to. All he does is blow hot air. I'd love to hear his actual plans, but it's pretty clear by now that they don't exist.

[jimboa24]

Twice now you've said you'd never vote for Clinton under any circumstances, but also alluded to there being circumstances in which you'd vote for her. The only examples you gave were extremely hyperbolic, but you seem pretty zealous about it.

Overall I'd say that if you're going to get really mad when someone questions your unclear choice of rhetoric in a discussion it probably wasn't a great strategy to have used in the first place.

I would never, ever vote for her. Period. Worst case, I wouldn't vote. But yes, if I were forced to, at gunpoint, vote for her or someone else, I would choose someone else every single time. But in reality, which is the plane of existence we dwell on, not voting is always an option, and there there is not a single, solitary scenario that ever ends in me voting for Hillary Clinton.

[gusty jack]

Clinton essentially said that

"Deplorable" now means borderline retarded. The more you know.