Second Presidential Debate - Sunday, October 9, 2016

[Breccia]

Don't you think she had a hand in deciding on that major foreign policy decision, or do you think Obama is just some sort of maniac that didn't consult her before making that decision?

Again, yes, she probably had something to do with the policy when it was set. She had no legal hand in how it was enforced. That's kind of a big deal. Again, both sides can claim they were right, Trump was vague when he phrased it.

[Fargus]

You do delete 30,000 emails if the request is to turn over work related emails and you have 30,000 personal emails on the drive.

During an investigation?

[Venant]

And she'd have something to say about enforcing it, too. She was in office for the first but not the second. Again, both sides can claim they're right based on the way Trump phrased the question.

So this administration just makes major foreign policy decisions without contingency plans for having to actually follow through with their positions?

[DeadmanWalking]

Yes. And your point is? He was just as slimy.

Mmm, Just as slimey? Come on, we both know better.

- - - Updated - - -

During an investigation?

If there is an investigation of your work emails and you have 30,000 personal emails nobody needs to see sure, I am not saying that is what happened but obviously it was enough to get her out of trouble.

[provaporous]

Ooo, was it "black and white murderers are prosecuted the same"? That was Giulliani, and False.

Politfact is super biased, they are run by the Tampa bay times, who enforced Hillary, they have a huge left leaning bias of using their true/false/mostly true/mostly false ratings to make dems look better when in reality they all lie/stretch constantly.

[Foosha]

On the politifacts Trump statistics thing:

If they did get it wrong and you can't find it anymore, then that's actually an indicator that politifact has the integrity to remove bad fact checks.

Which is probably not what this whole hunt was intending to prove.

How do you rush a "fact check"??? Isn't the whole entire process of fact checking making sure you get the facts right WITHOUT ANY BIAS?? This just shows they are so adamant in proving Trump wrong they dont even fact check their "fact checks"

[Breccia]

On this whole 'politifact marking something false when it isn't', one I've been a bit picky about is this one in which it's unclear whether Trump is directly quoting James Comey or is adding his own opinion.

Ah. See, I was looking in the wrong place.

That is such a bias site lmao. I remember I read one where they called Trump a liar when his statistic was real, but they just decided they didn't like how it was put forward. It's ridiculous how they can get away with this and nobody seems to care.

They changed it.
It was originally a statement he made about black on black crime vs white on black crime. They said that he cited the correct statistic, but that he avoided the reasons behind it and called it pants on fire. What they have up there now is something completely different relating to a image macro. I'll see if I can dig it up at all anywhere else.

[Venant]

During an investigation?

Don't you know that its standard practice for the FBI to politely ask people its investigating to determine what evidence is incriminating and turn it over to them? I mean, its not like they have guys with guns who actually go out and seize all the electronics that belong to the targets of their national security investigations. Its not like its standard policy to threaten lower level conspirators with heavy jail time to force them to turn on their bosses. And it is certainly unheard of for them to use immunity to prosecution as a bargaining chip to get testimony and convictions of the ringleaders of criminal conspiracies, you know as opposed to just giving everyone blanket immunity so that it is impossible to bring a criminal case against anyone involved.

[Endus]

During an investigation?

When it's an investigation into your work e-mail use, then yes, deleting the personal e-mails from the same account is exactly what you're supposed to do. It eliminates the pointless personal stuff that the investigators no longer have to wade through, wasting everyone's time.

And before anyone says "but subpoena". Subpoenas specify exactly what needs to be turned over. Unless it stated "personal e-mails for the same period", they wouldn't have been covered.

[Fargus]

Mmm, Just as slimey? Come on, we both know better.

Okay, he was far more dodgy. But I don't see the point of using the "not as bad as" excuse.

If there is an investigation of your work emails and you have 30,000 personal emails nobody needs to see sure, I am not saying that is what happened but obviously it was enough to get her out of trouble.

How do you know they were all personal e-mails? I mean, 30,000 is a large number - any one of them could have had incriminating information. And if they did, it makes a lot of sense to use software to make sure they're actually deleted for good.

[DeadmanWalking]

Okay, he was far more dodgy. But I don't see the point of using the "not as bad as" excuse.


How do you know they were all personal e-mails? I mean, 30,000 is a large number - any one of them could have had incriminating information. And if they did, it makes a lot of sense to use software to make sure they're actually deleted for good.

How do you know there were not personal emails?

[provaporous]

During an investigation?

>30,000 personal emails
On a fairly new email account run by an old woman.

I'm Suuuuure they were all about personal stuff and not pay to play and foundation bribes.

[Breccia]

Politfact is super biased, they are run by the Tampa bay times

And as already discussed, FactCheck and, when appropriate, Snopes agrees with Politifact in basically every instance they discuss the same matter. Does the Pultizer Prize winning Politifact happen to be owned by the people who own them, too?

(psst...they're not)

As everyone else is about to tell you, Politifact cites their sources and say Trump is saying something that's not true, when it's provably not true. Your claims of bias can't be defended successfully.

[Endus]

How do you know they were all personal e-mails?

That's not how this works. You want to claim they weren't, you need to prove that. There's no reason to think otherwise, at this point.

I mean, 30,000 is a large number - any one of them could have had incriminating information. And if they did, it makes a lot of sense to use software to make sure they're actually deleted for good.

And they could also have contained the treasure map to Blackbeard's hoard, and the secret recipe for Coca-Cola. As long as we're inventing fictions.

[DeadmanWalking]

>30,000 personal emails
On a fairly new email account run by an old woman.

I'm Suuuuure they were all about personal stuff and not pay to play and foundation bribes.

So we are at the point where we can make shit up and not need any kind of proof? Awesome.

[Fargus]

How do you know there were not personal emails?

I don't. Besides, you cannot prove a negative.

You were saying that they were all personal e-mails but you don't know that.

[Endus]

>30,000 personal emails
On a fairly new email account run by an old woman.

I'm Suuuuure they were all about personal stuff and not pay to play and foundation bribes.

Again, you want to make that argument? Find actual evidence. Until then, you're literally making stuff up. You may as well be saying her e-mails contained her secret HYDRA code phrases for establishing connections to COBRA, to combine forces to defeat SHIELD and GI JOE for good.

[Venant]

I guess her meds were starting to wear off after the debate

[provaporous]

How do you rush a "fact check"??? Isn't the whole entire process of fact checking making sure you get the facts right WITHOUT ANY BIAS?? This just shows they are so adamant in proving Trump wrong they dont even fact check their "fact checks"

Politicact is garbage tier, same with vox and the hill, they all put our sensationalist garbage right after the debates or scandals to deflect attention to trump, rather than onto Hillary's speeches.

[Breccia]

Okay, he was far more dodgy. But I don't see the point of using the "not as bad as" excuse.

Why not? Trump used it at the debate. "Grab them by the pussy" isn't as bad as ISIS drowning people in cages. Based on that ironclad logic, I'm fairly sure we can get away with ANYTHING.

/sarcasm