Final Presidential Debate - October 19, 2016

[Venant]

Basically, Russia might not like a no-fly zone, and might decide to wield their relatively puny armed forces against the USA, so Americans should shake in their boots that the relatively weak remnants of an enemy they crushed in the decades-long Cold War might ineffectually slap back.

Or something. The idea that Russia is anything close to the strength of the Soviet Union in its heyday is laughable. When the USA is arguably stronger than ever.

I might dislike that the USA spends so much on its military and involves itself so much overseas, but the idea that Russia is any kind of significant threat is pretty ridiculous.

And you are advocating that the US provoke a conflict with Russia so we can help a bunch of Al Qaeda terrorists take over Syria. The 'moderate rebels' that we are helping are terrorists, Al Nusra is an offshoot of Al Qaeda. And your justification for this is what, that we need to stand up against Russia because how dare Russia bomb jihadists.

In the end, such a policy will at best only result in even more dead Syrians. I would suggest a better foreign policy is for the US government to stop using jihadists as part of its foreign policy.

[Casterbridge]

In order for Hillary to enforce a no fly zone she would have to actually shoot down things flying in it. This could possibly start a war. I don't know how you would enforce that and I'm pretty sure Hillary doesn't intend to.

The reality is Hillary won't just enforce a no fly zone day one of her presidency. And Russia won't just escalate to a nuclear war if we did. Chess game analogy.

Actually not entirely true a no-fly zone can can be put in place and nations that don't obey can have sanctions put on them.

I'm not saying this is the strategy or even if it's a good one, but there are alternative ways of enforcing a no-fly zone, obviously some are more effective than others.

[Breccia]

And let's take a look at the Politifact third debate showdown. From what they've done so far:

Clinton:

17 US agencies say Russia is involved in hacking: True
Illegal aliens built Trump Tower: True
33,000 people die from guns each year: Mostly True
Trump wanted to round up every illegal alien as recently as last week: Mostly True
Disagrees with SCOTUS gun decision because of kids: Half True
Trump called the Emmys rigged when he didn't win: Half True
No Mostly False, False, or Pants on Fire statements.

Donald Trump

Heroin pouring over southern border: True
No Mostly True statements.
Clinton wanted the wall: Half True
Clinton wanted open borders: Mostly False
Clinton will raise/double your taxes: Mostly False
I never mocked a disabled reporter: False
Sexual assault claims on him debunked: False
State Department under Clinton lost $6billion: Pants on Fire

Clinton: 66% Honest (True/Mostly True) 0% Dishonest (Mostly False or worse)
Trump: 14% Honest, 71% Dishonest.

[waitwutt]

Did Trump just accuse Clinton of being the puppet when referring to Putin / Russia?

hes referring to her as the puppet when it comes to literally every other country and corp

[Lenonis]

Unfortunately, the same constitution that lead to the marriage equality decision should protect people from engaging in behavior in direct conflict with religious beliefs.

I'm sorry - that is just how it is.

Having a gay customer doesn't conflict with any religion, so even if what you stated is true (it isn't) it still isn't applicable to discrimination. And your claim is clearly false given the limits already placed on religion by the law today.

Or do you think an Islamic business owner could refuse to hire or serve Christians?

[waitwutt]

Not when they're a giant asshole sociopath whose done nothing but bully people his entire life.

you just described ALOT of diagnosed mentally handicapped people

- - - Updated - - -

And let's take a look at the Politifact third debate showdown. From what they've done so far:

Clinton:

17 US agencies say Russia is involved in hacking: True
Illegal aliens built Trump Tower: True
33,000 people die from guns each year: Mostly True
Trump wanted to round up every illegal alien as recently as last week: Mostly True
Disagrees with SCOTUS gun decision because of kids: Half True
Trump called the Emmys rigged when he didn't win: Half True
No Mostly False, False, or Pants on Fire statements.

Donald Trump

Heroin pouring over southern border: True
No Mostly True statements.
Clinton wanted the wall: Half True
Clinton wanted open borders: Mostly False
Clinton will raise/double your taxes: Mostly False
I never mocked a disabled reporter: False
Sexual assault claims on him debunked: False
State Department under Clinton lost $6billion: Pants on Fire

Clinton: 66% Honest (True/Mostly True) 0% Dishonest (Mostly False or worse)
Trump: 14% Honest, 71% Dishonest.

lol I wonder how politifact would rate the claim that its unbiased.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-me...ibility-his-p/

LMFAO

[May90]

Basically, Russia might not like a no-fly zone, and might decide to wield their relatively puny armed forces against the USA, so Americans should shake in their boots that the relatively weak remnants of an enemy they crushed in the decades-long Cold War might ineffectually slap back.

Or something. The idea that Russia is anything close to the strength of the Soviet Union in its heyday is laughable. When the USA is arguably stronger than ever.

I might dislike that the USA spends so much on its military and involves itself so much overseas, but the idea that Russia is any kind of significant threat is pretty ridiculous.

Not to mention that, while Putin is a dictator, he is not a madman. He won't start a war over a shot plane, just like he didn't start a war against Turkey over that (and Turkey's might is nothing, compared to the US). Let alone nuclear war... It is not even clear whether Russian WMDs are still functional (the warheads have a rapid decay period, and there hasn't been much information on the maintenance done), and even if they are, Putin is not a suicidal maniac and won't use them against the US.

In order for Hillary to enforce a no fly zone she would have to actually shoot down things flying in it. This could possibly start a war. I don't know how you would enforce that and I'm pretty sure Hillary doesn't intend to.

The reality is Hillary won't just enforce a no fly zone day one of her presidency. And Russia won't just escalate to a nuclear war if we did. Chess game analogy.

That's another way to look at it. In any case, was between two superpowers don't start over nothing, there is always a veeeeery good reason for them to start. There was no war between Soviet Union and the US in all 74 years of USSR existence, even though for the majority of that period that countries were in the state of Cold War - and the relations between the countries were much, much worse than they are even nowadays. Nowadays Russia has just grabbed a few small pieces of land and is messing up the situation in one country. Back in USSR days, it supported communist regimes across half the globe...

[Venant]

In case you weren't aware, there's a big difference between 'collateral damage' (which is already pretty shitty) and specifically targeting the civilian relatives of terrorists. There's a reason the latter is against the Geneva Conventions. Which, I know, Trump (and I suppose you?) is not a fan of, but he doesn't get to make that choice.

The drone program is designed to allow for plausible deniability when it comes to killing the families of terrorists.

The most notable example of this was the assassination of Abduhlrahman al-Awlaki, a US citizen who was not involved in terrorism, and the son of Anwahr al-Awlaki.

Sorry but the Nobel Peace Prize winning president of ours is also an international war criminal, but then again all US presidents would be jailed in the Hague if the United States actually submitted to international law.

[Breccia]

lol I wonder how politifact would rate the claim that its unbiased.

Anyone who claims Politifact is biased is free to challenge any of their results, which cite sources.

I'll throw out a softball, a Mostly False: Clinton will raise/double your taxes. Politifact called it "Mostly False" because her tax plan only increases the top rates, affecting around 1% of the population, and even so, does not double anyone's regardless of income level. Anyone want to show how they got that one wrong? Give it a try. Take your time.

[Noxx79]

you just described ALOT of diagnosed mentally handicapped people

- - - Updated - - -



lol I wonder how politifact would rate the claim that its unbiased.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-me...ibility-his-p/

LMFAO

Unbiased doesn't mean "Artificially balance true and not true statements." It is not biased to call liars out for being liars, and if one side lies more than the other, to call them out on that.

I'm not sure what your link is supposed to show. Trump has no fiduciary requirement to not pay income taxes. He is required by business practice to do what he can to make money, but nothing about personal finances:

That might have been a credible argument if he were referring to his companies’ tax returns. But the statement was in response to controversy surrounding Trump’s personal tax returns. Experts we contacted said there is no generally accepted fiduciary obligation keep one’s own taxes low.

Tell me what is wrong about that statement.

[Felya]

hes referring to her as the puppet when it comes to literally every other country and corp

What debate were you watching?

Trump talked about how "stupid America" is and how smart Putin is, where Hillary interjected and said "because you are a puppet". At this point Trump went with the ol' Peewee Herman, 'you are the one... you are the puppet'...

[waitwutt]

But not equally awful. Who is worse, of course, depends on the issues you care about. I refuse to acknowledge attempts to make them falsely equivalent.

youde have to look at who has done the most damage to the world. and the country. like someone who took away restrictions on banks loaning to people. then gets paid huge sums of money from those banks only to have what they did cause the market to crash in 08 and started conflicts in other countries. the person who was party to that did quite a bit of damage.

[Endus]

And you are advocating that the US provoke a conflict with Russia so we can help a bunch of Al Qaeda terrorists take over Syria.

Wrong in two different ways;

1> Russia's the one provoking conflict, this would be a US response to that provocation.

2> The US-led coalition isn't supporting ISIS, they're attacking ISIS. Come on, at least keep your talking points somewhere in the general vicinity of reality.

The 'moderate rebels' that we are helping are terrorists, Al Nusra is an offshoot of Al Qaeda. And your justification for this is what, that we need to stand up against Russia because how dare Russia bomb jihadists.

This is so completely untrue that it's galling.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syrian_Civil_War

There's not two sides to the civil war in Syria. The USA's supporting the opposition forces, not Al Nusra.

Not to mention that, while Putin is a dictator, he is not a madman. He won't start a war over a shot plane, just like he didn't start a war against Turkey over that (and Turkey's might is nothing, compared to the US). Let alone nuclear war... It is not even clear whether Russian WMDs are still functional (the warheads have a rapid decay period, and there hasn't been much information on the maintenance done), and even if they are, Putin is not a suicidal maniac and won't use them against the US.

He's a small man who desperately wants to be seen as a big man. Bowing down before his will without contesting it is exactly what he wants, but like you said, he's not stupid enough to think he could actually fight the United States.

[waitwutt]

Clinton Foundation is probably her weakest point still imo.

I don't know enough about the alleged "pay to play" nonsense, since I've never seen an unbiased report on it, but I certainly don't believe Trump's characterization.

the worst of them is the people who gave the most to the Clinton foundation who owned construction companies were givin the rebuilding Haiti contracts. they were paid millions only to build REALLY shitty housing.

[Felya]

lol I wonder how politifact would rate the claim that its unbiased.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-me...ibility-his-p/

LMFAO

They explain it pretty clearly.... you know what I find funny? You putting up Trump saying he will do what ever he can to help him self, as long as it's within law, on the truth meter of fiduciary responsibility. Here I thought people would realize what putting a guy who will do what ever it takes to help him self within the law, in charge of law, makes no sense. Nope, it's how true his responsibility to the country is... that's LMFAO...

[waitwutt]

Wrong in two different ways;

1> Russia's the one provoking conflict, this would be a US response to that provocation.

2> The US-led coalition isn't supporting ISIS, they're attacking ISIS. Come on, at least keep your talking points somewhere in the general vicinity of reality.



This is so completely untrue that it's galling.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syrian_Civil_War

There's not two sides to the civil war in Syria. The USA's supporting the opposition forces, not Al Nusra.



He's a small man who desperately wants to be seen as a big man. Bowing down before his will without contesting it is exactly what he wants, but like you said, he's not stupid enough to think he could actually fight the United States.

Syria is russias ally. so hes helping them to not be overthrown. if Saudi Arabia was being attacked by rebels would we not help Saudi Arabia government?

[Lenonis]

youde have to look at who has done the most damage to the world. and the country. like someone who took away restrictions on banks loaning to people. then gets paid huge sums of money from those banks only to have what they did cause the market to crash in 08 and started conflicts in other countries. the person who was party to that did quite a bit of damage.

So...you are saying we should only judge a candidate based on...what their spouse did? Rather than what they say they will do or any other characteristics or metrics?

[Endus]

Syria is russias ally. so hes helping them to not be overthrown. if Saudi Arabia was being attacked by rebels would we not help Saudi Arabia government?

And the USA is and has been supporting the opposition government, against Assad.

If, in your hypothetical, the USA was launching air strikes against those rebels, and some significantly-more-powerful nation supporting those rebels said "yeah, cut that out, any more planes in the air and we'll take offense", then yes, the US should think long and hard about what they're doing, because breaking that no-fly zone will provoke a reaction they can't handle.

This is the issue; you folks keep acting like Russia's the same superpower that the Soviet Union once was, and it isn't.

[waitwutt]

Unbiased doesn't mean "Artificially balance true and not true statements." It is not biased to call liars out for being liars, and if one side lies more than the other, to call them out on that.

I'm not sure what your link is supposed to show. Trump has no fiduciary requirement to not pay income taxes. He is required by business practice to do what he can to make money, but nothing about personal finances:



Tell me what is wrong about that statement.

fiduciary responsibility to his family and business not to pay more than is required so that the excess money can go towards building his business and family.

umm to not give the government more than the required amount? its not a legal responsibility but he would be throwing it away instead of helping his business or family. NO ONE is going to pay taxes if they aren't legally obligated to, when they can use that money to invest.

[Noxx79]

fiduciary responsibility to his family and business not to pay more than is required so that the excess money can go towards building his business and family.

umm to not give the government more than the required amount? its not a legal responsibility but he would be throwing it away instead of helping his business or family. NO ONE is going to pay taxes if they aren't legally obligated to, when they can use that money to invest.

So he's not legally required to give the government as little as possible with personal income tax, thanks for proving my point!