Second Presidential Debate - Sunday, October 9, 2016

[Rukh]

So you think Trump won?

I don't like this question because I think it is a false premise. People always want there to be a clear winner and loser of debates but often it is entirely too subjective to determine. I think what really matters is the long-term impact on the race.

Take for instance the VP debate. Lots of people say Pence "won" because he came off slick and professional. On the other hand though, Pence probably did more harm than good to the race with all his denial and Kaine probably did more good than harm due to creating usable soundbytes and directing his attacks at Trump which Pence had to spend his time deflecting. Overall, Kaine probably made more of a difference in the race than Pence.

With regards to this second presidential debate, Trump may have come off as dull and attacking, but being able to string together complete sentences may stopper his free-falling campaign (at least until the next video comes out) while Hillary may have been able to successfully answer questions unlike Trump and have actual positions, but she probably didn't change people's opinion of her campaign much.

In that way, Trump probably got more out of this debate than Hillary, but on the other hand, there was a lot more for Trump to gain than Hillary. Unless Hillary suddenly developed her husband's charisma, there just wasn't a lot to gain out of this debate, but there was a lot to potentially lose, and she didn't do that either. She remains in the position she was in before, and that's probably to her benefit.

In short the results from this debate are Hillary did not lose ground, Trump probably benefited.

[Endus]

You don't need evidence to assume something. This isn't a court of law.

You're free to believe whatever wild fantasies you want to.

If you want to convince anyone else that you're not cuckoo for cocoa puffs, you're gonna be asked to back those fantasies up with some kind of evidence.

What evidence? Have you read all of those e-mails? You're in the dark as much as anyone here, you don't have access to all this information.

Clinton's word, the word of State, the word of the FBI, all of whom HAVE looked through those e-mails.

I can assume anything I want, thank you very much. And I assume that there may have been evidence that was destroyed, because I think Hillary Clinton is a very corrupt individual and she wouldn't be above that. You might not, and that's fine. But don't go telling me what I can or cannot assume.

Like I said, you can think Clinton's a lizardperson in a skinsuit who's working to save the Smurfs from Trumpgamel, but if you want anyone to believe any of that, you're gonna be expected to have some justification for it.

Your "argument" here is literally no different from people who just know that aliens kidnapped their dog, or that they totally saw the Loch Ness Monster once. You're free to believe it. It's not convincing anyone unless you can back it up.

[DeadmanWalking]

You don't need evidence to assume something. This isn't a court of law.


What evidence? Have you read all of those e-mails? You're in the dark as much as anyone here, you don't have access to all this information.


I can assume anything I want, thank you very much. And I assume that there may have been evidence that was destroyed, because I think Hillary Clinton is a very corrupt individual and she wouldn't be above that. You might not, and that's fine. But don't go telling me what I can or cannot assume.

If you don't have evidence then all you have is conspiracy theories and they are not allowed here. I could say that Reagan lined up immigrant children and shot them all with elephant guns, I mean I assume he could of, therefore it is possible, but since I don't have any proof he did it then it is just a conspiracy theory.

[Garnier Fructis]

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"

If the purported fact check exists.

[Dontrike]

Yeah, that's been Trump's problem the entire time : his mouth.

The whole pussy grabbing comment was pretty crazy but for me I'm still a bit stunned that he took the time to attack a woman on twitter. WTF was he thinking? How the hell is that going to help his case? Someone from his staff should be on guard 24hrs a day to prevent him from doing that kind of stuff. What an unbelievable example of a lack of self control from someone who is looking to run the most powerful (arguably) country on the planet.

I"m surprised they even let him have a phone or near a computer during this time so this wouldn't happen. Honestly if he didn't say something crazy or unbelievably dumb every other day he would actually sound like a respectable choice.

[Ragedaug]

*ahem*

Sorry, you were saying something about a strawman? Please, continue.

meh. The evidence can either prove she was guilty or innocent. My point to Endus is that we have no way to know what was deleted because..wait for it... it was deleted. You can try to pick at hairs here, but my point stands that no rational investigator lets the suspect pick and choose what to destroy before they gather the evidence.

I am stating that I don't know what was in the email. So you can respond all night long, "you don't have proof" and you will only make my argument stronger. I know we don't know...that's my point. We have no proof (of right or wrong) because she deleted the proof she had.

[Fargus]

You actually do need proof. You can't just go accuse people of a crime when there is no proof. In some countries that will get you sued. In others, shot.

Maybe you need to revisit your defamation and libel laws, I am saying that some of these e-mails may have had incriminating information. I do not live in a fascist country where muttering such things will land me in hot water, let alone shot. Such suppositions are not just on this site, but all over Youtube, reddit, etc. This is a place of public opinion, not a court of law.

[Endus]

meh. The evidence can either prove she was guilty or innocent. My point to Endus is that we have no way to know what was deleted because..wait for it... it was deleted. You can try to pick at hairs here, but my point stands that no rational investigator lets the suspect pick and choose what to destroy before they gather the evidence.

And the point YOU'RE missing is that there was no investigation at the time. You have the timelines all screwed up. You're effectively presuming she murdered someone because she cleaned her house, and how can we tell there weren't piles of blood all over when she just cleaned them up?

[Ragedaug]

Maybe you need to revisit your defamation and libel laws, I am saying that some of these e-mails may have had incriminating information. I do not live in a fascist country where muttering such things will land me in hot water, let alone shot. Such suppositions are not just on this site, but all over Youtube, reddit, etc. This is a place of public opinion, not a court of law.

I guess they think we are judges.

To all the Hillary drones out there, Fargus and I are just regular people. We aren't able to find Hillary guilty of a crime. We can only have opinions based on the information available upon which to draw conclusions.

A conclusion like, when you delete 30,000 emails and pay someone to figure out how to scrub them permanently, then have people lie about wiping them and have people take the 5th when they are asked questions...it seems very suspicious that you are trying to cover something up.

[Camthur]

LOL, the irony that CNN would be caught with a hot mic just days after they went after Trump for something he was caught saying. CNN totally got caught coaching their supposed "neutral" post debate focus group. I don't like Trump at all, but it does appear that most of the media is out to get anybody that dared square off against Hillary this year.

[Fargus]

You're free to believe whatever wild fantasies you want to.

If you want to convince anyone else that you're not cuckoo for cocoa puffs, you're gonna be asked to back those fantasies up with some kind of evidence.

Calling Clinton a corrupt individual is hardly a wild fantasy or "cuckoo".

Clinton's word, the word of State, the word of the FBI, all of whom HAVE looked through those e-mails.

Clinton's word means nothing to me. I wouldn't trust this person at all.

It's hard to look through all those e-mails when they've been scrubbed clean. Do you have a source that says they retrieved and looked through every single deleted e-mail?

Like I said, you can think Clinton's a lizardperson in a skinsuit who's working to save the Smurfs from Trumpgamel, but if you want anyone to believe any of that, you're gonna be expected to have some justification for it.

Your "argument" here is literally no different from people who just know that aliens kidnapped their dog, or that they totally saw the Loch Ness Monster once. You're free to believe it. It's not convincing anyone unless you can back it up.

My justification has a bit more grounding than your ridiculous analogies (which seem to be deliberately planted to make what I'm saying look worse than it actually is) - she is a serial, pathological liar and I don't trust her to be perfectly honest about this situation.

[Breccia]

My point to Endus is that we have no way to know what was deleted because..wait for it... it was deleted.

This is a really stupid thing to say after claiming you never said she deleted emails.

[Ragedaug]

And the point YOU'RE missing is that there was no investigation at the time. You have the timelines all screwed up. You're effectively presuming she murdered someone because she cleaned her house, and how can we tell there weren't piles of blood all over when she just cleaned them up?

No what I'm effectively doing is thinking she is hiding something because...

- she delete 30,000 emails for no apparent reasons
- she paid someone to figure out how to scrub them permanently
- lied about wiping the emails
- had other people lie about wiping them
- had people take the 5th when they are asked questions about it.

- - - Updated - - -

This is a really stupid thing to say after claiming you never said she deleted emails.

yes, it would be a stupid thing to say if I had said that. Great strawman, you are almost as good as deadmanwalking.

[Fargus]

I guess they think we are judges.

To all the Hillary drones out there, Fargus and I are just regular people. We aren't able to find Hillary guilty of a crime. We can only have opinions based on the information available upon which to draw conclusions.

A conclusion like, when you delete 30,000 emails and pay someone to figure out how to scrub them permanently, then have people lie about wiping them and have people take the 5th when they are asked questions...it seems very suspicious that you are trying to cover something up.

Yeah.

Apparently I need proof to hold an opinion... and it seems just as wild and crazy as the Loch Ness monster.

[Deleted]

i watched first few mins, both dodging questions for stupidly repeating their agenda. peaking in trump blaming isis for his tapes. i then thought "well americans can surely hire some third person to do the job" and went to bed

[Breccia]

yes, it would be a stupid thing to say if I had said that. Great strawman, you are almost as good as deadmanwalking.

*ahem*

Do you have evidence she deleted non-personal email? No, so continuing in this vein is conspiracy theory and that's not allowed here. Bring us some proof she deleted sensitive emails and we can talk about it, other wise its is your word against hers.

I never said she did. Way to destroy another strawman. You are king of the strawmen tonight! masterful debating.

I'm sorry, you were saying something about being caught lying red-handed? Please, continue.

[Traveler Voltin]

I am surprised someone hasn't brought up the pedo that clinton got set free and then laugh about it later.
Good way to attack her judgement and her for the children stuff.

[Endus]

No what I'm effectively doing is thinking she is hiding something because...

- she delete 30,000 emails for no apparent reasons
- she paid someone to figure out how to scrub them permanently
- lied about wiping the emails
- had other people lie about wiping them
- had people take the 5th when they are asked questions about it.

The "apparent reason" is because she didn't need them any more. Have you never deleted e-mails? She'd submitted what she was required to, to State, and there were no investigations at the time for her to be avoiding; you're literally blaming her for psychic powers at this point.

The rest is pretty much garbage, particularly the attack on people taking the 5th, which pretty much everyone should do when asked about anything that might self-incriminate, unless offered immunity.

[stomination]

I just want this election to be over I don't care who wins anymore

I know. Its kinda pointless being the Gop is going to win no matter what. You have a centrist running as a democrat and a tea party running as a republican.


You would think the democrats would have notice they already lost.

[Breccia]

I am surprised someone hasn't brought up the pedo that clinton got set free and then laugh about it later.
Good way to attack her judgement and her for the children stuff.

Funny you should say that.
a) Trump did bring it up
b) It's still False.