Second Presidential Debate - Sunday, October 9, 2016

[Deleted]

He was the better man in this situation because she refused to answer the question. To recap the question was something you respect about the person, not about how you respect one's children. Those people are different individuals and that is why there was a low gasp when she refused to do so. She showcased her true nature and temperment right there. The "private" persona as she called it..

No, she was just being honest. I suspect that to Hilary, as to me, there is nothing about Donald Trump's person she respects. He has not one virtue I can recognise. He is a self-aggrandising, self-deluding, narcissistic, boorish, bullying, mean spirited, dishonest, cheating, robbing, opportunist, childish, misogynistic, lecherous, racist, xenophobic, ignorant, offensive, absurd little man. [Did I miss anything?]

I think Hilary did well, praising his children. At least, Ivanka seems likable enough.

Those sons who brandished the severed elephant's trunk, they can go fuck themselves.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...ecil-lion.html

[Felya]

That depends if you are going to vote for someone that lied for 1 year or 30?

You do know that the late Phill Heartman made fun of Trump's lies and stupidity on SNL in the 80s? Look it up, it's pretty funny...

[Belize]

They arent biased but Trump doesnt lie on purpose. Most of these things listed as "lies" are just things he just blurted out without knowing all the facts. Hillary on the other hand makes up lies on purpose and with malicious intent.

So he's not dishonest, just fucking retarded?

Oh, well that's much better.

[Deleted]

No, she was just being honest. I suspect that to Hilary, as to me, there is nothing about Donald Trump's person she respects. He has not one virtue I can recognise. He is a self-aggrandising, self-deluding, narcissistic, boorish, bullying, mean spirited, dishonest, cheating, robbing, opportunist, childish, misogynistic, lecherous, racist, xenophobic, ignorant, offensive, absurd little man. [Did I miss anything?]

I think Hilary did well, praising his children. At least, Ivanka seems likable enough.

Those sons who brandished the severed elephant's trunk, they can go fuck themselves.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...ecil-lion.html

Pretty sure you hit all of them, buzzword bingo! good for you buddy. 10/10.

[Felya]

They arent biased but Trump doesnt lie on purpose. Most of these things listed as "lies" are just things he just blurted out without knowing all the facts. Hillary on the other hand makes up lies on purpose and with malicious intent.

Your argument is that Trump is not lying, but is an ignorant demagogue? Fine... you can agree with Hillary on that one...

- - - Updated - - -

Pretty sure you hit all of them, buzzword bingo! good for you buddy. 10/10.

You know, you can just ignore what both candidates have actually been saying as just buzzwords?

[Deathcries]

Fact checking is a liberal bias guys.

It is when the liberals are doing the fact checking.

[Felya]

It is when the liberals are doing the fact checking.

But, you are the one defining them as liberal... meaning, you choose what is a fact, not based on the rational, but how quickly you can spew out "liberal"...

[AndaliteBandit]

It is when the liberals are doing the fact checking.

Why don't conservatives even attempt to fact check?

[Asotcha]

Robin teen titans go!

I've been remembering that this entire election--Robin freaking out "I Do NOT have BABY HANDS!!!" xD

[Belize]

It is when the liberals are doing the fact checking.

And it's a conservative bias when conservatives do it then...?

Guess we shouldn't ever check facts. Might be biased.

Wait.

[Edge-]

Those sons who brandished the severed elephant's trunk, they can go fuck themselves.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...ecil-lion.html

Were these legal hunts? Because if so, the liberal freakouts over them are usually pretty silly. Rich folks pay big money to hunt these animals, money that often goes to local communities who really need it as well as the organizations that frequently protect these wild animals from poachers. Couple that with the meat from the kills also going to local communities (who benefit from that greatly) and the fact that the animals are singled out by game wardens etc. as being ill/past breeding age etc. so their loss will not have an impact on the local population and it's even less of an issue.

Need more details on the hunts these two did before rushing to condemn them. Even though yes, they generally appear to take after their father and be not great human beings.

[May90]

It is when the liberals are doing the fact checking.

It is like saying that math is biased when a mathematician is doing a theorem derivation. Yes, of course it is biased - in a way that the guy, unlike most others, actually knows what he is doing.

[stomination]

Why don't conservatives even attempt to fact check?

They both do and everyone claims the other side is bias. And they can call themselves non-partisian but that's like saying I'm a polka dotted human.

[Venant]

It is like saying that math is biased when a mathematician is doing a theorem derivation. Yes, of course it is biased - in a way that the guy, unlike most others, actually knows what he is doing.

"I'm too smart to be fooled by propaganda" - Said by every person who has ever fallen for propaganda.

- - - Updated - - -

They both do and everyone claims the other side is bias. And they can call themselves non-partisian but that's like saying I'm a polka dotted human.

They are getting a bit sloppy nowadays.

[Edge-]

They both do and everyone claims the other side is bias. And they can call themselves non-partisian but that's like saying I'm a polka dotted human.

Where? Is there a specific site devoted to this? Does Breitbart or another right leaning site have a fact check column or something? I've not seen anyone arguing that Snopes/Politifact/Factcheck are biased left wing shills actually link any alternatives. At least none that I can remember.

[stomination]

Were these legal hunts? Because if so, the liberal freakouts over them are usually pretty silly. Rich folks pay big money to hunt these animals, money that often goes to local communities who really need it as well as the organizations that frequently protect these wild animals from poachers. Couple that with the meat from the kills also going to local communities (who benefit from that greatly) and the fact that the animals are singled out by game wardens etc. as being ill/past breeding age etc. so their loss will not have an impact on the local population and it's even less of an issue.

Need more details on the hunts these two did before rushing to condemn them. Even though yes, they generally appear to take after their father and be not great human beings.

But there are plenty of those liberal that freakout over small things just like there is plenty of conservatives that do the same thing on the other side.

One day ppl will realize the middle is the better place to be.

[Venant]

Where? Is there a specific site devoted to this? Does Breitbart or another right leaning site have a fact check column or something? I've not seen anyone arguing that Snopes/Politifact/Factcheck are biased left wing shills actually link any alternatives. At least none that I can remember.

You can do your own fact checking, there are a huge number of resources on the internet for doing this. For example, when Hillary Clinton claimed that she wasn't Secretary of State when the 'red line' policy was drawn, you could have looked up the dates of when these events occurred on wikipedia.

[May90]

"I'm too smart to be fooled by propaganda" - Said by every person who has ever fallen for propaganda.

What does fact checking have to do with propaganda? Do you people just make random statements now? I talked about math for a reason: math is basically an apex of fact checking.

[stomination]

Where? Is there a specific site devoted to this? Does Breitbart or another right leaning site have a fact check column or something? I've not seen anyone arguing that Snopes/Politifact/Factcheck are biased left wing shills actually link any alternatives. At least none that I can remember.

Do you really believe there are people out there that doesn't have a preference?

[The Penguin]

They both do and everyone claims the other side is bias. And they can call themselves non-partisian but that's like saying I'm a polka dotted human.

Regardless of which side you support, this is why any "fact checking" or research should have a:

"I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct and is a complete restatement of all pertinent facts.".

Simple, elegant and reminds people to keep what amount to personal opinions to just that. Of course lets be honest. Both sides have much to lose in taking off their pretty masks. At least Trump for all his faults has no hidden side as far as can be seen. Now if he was really Cobra Commander and Putin was really Destro.. that would be amazingly funny.

Point is I'll take someone who doesn't as a norm try to deceive and lets it all hang out, over someone who carefully crafts their deceptions for days, weeks, months and sometimes even years at a time. In this Trump for all his bombastic rhetoric proves a better candidate than Hillary ever will. How much Voter Fraud can we expect this year I wonder? Gotta get that 55, All or nothing in California after all!

I think Hilary did well, praising his children.

Still she did not correctly or honestly answer the guy's question. Hence the gasps.