Final Presidential Debate - October 19, 2016

[Evil Midnight Bomber]

Trump did all of those things? I'm assuming you have proof? Because if you didn't you should be prepared for the same standard to be applied to your candidate.

That standard has been applied to Hillary from the beginning.

[Lenonis]

Trump did all of those things? I'm assuming you have proof? Because if you didn't you should be prepared for the same standard to be applied to your candidate.

To be fair the discussion is about how someone feels about Clinton but doesn't have the same feelings about Trump. Given the admitted lack of believing what evidence or lack of evidence exists about Clinton, your question doesn't actually apply. It's discussion feelings and the court of public opinion, not so much actual proof of wrongdoing.

[Merkava]

snip.

Is there a conviction or judgement against him for fraud? There's a no.

Is there a conviction or judgement against him for sexual assault? There's another no.

Is there a conviction or judgement against him for bribery? Another no.

I don't know what Cubby meant when he merely said "Tax Records" So, until there's a charge, I say indeterminate.

So what you're left with is court of public opinion. Again, if that's your standard, then be prepared to have that turned against you.

- - - Updated - - -

Just as much as Hillary did, right? Oh wait, she's already been cleared and Trump is still under investigation.

What is Trump under investigation for? There's a pending case for fraud scheduled for after the election. But that's a civil case. Maybe that's what you meant.

There was a status hearing for rape or sexual assault, but that's not really an investigation.

I don't know if there's any ongoing hearings for bribery.

So when you say, under investigation, you're going to have to be a little more clear.

- - - Updated - - -

That standard has been applied to Hillary from the beginning.

Well then at least it's the same standard. That was my point.

- - - Updated - - -

To be fair the discussion is about how someone feels about Clinton but doesn't have the same feelings about Trump. Given the admitted lack of believing what evidence or lack of evidence exists about Clinton, your question doesn't actually apply. It's discussion feelings and the court of public opinion, not so much actual proof of wrongdoing.

That's what I mentioned above. If it's court of public opinion, then we can take everything back to Hillary's cattle futures trading. But then your argument may actually lie with Breccia, and not me.

Edit - and if that's what Cubby meant, that we were dealing with perception and not public opinion, then his reply to me certainly didn't indidcate that. He talked about ongoing investigations, and the fact that Hillary was cleared. Clearly he's talking about legal issues.

Edit - Before you all jump on me again, know what I'm saying. If we're talking real world legal actions, which is what Breccia and Cubby appear to be doing, you can point out the things you might think Trump is guilty of, but you can't say that he's guilty. I think that's an important distinction, and one that I've voiced in defense of Hillary Clinton. Of course some of you won't believe that...

That's not bad, but I would go further and say that there's some of us who, while allowing Hillary the presumption of innocence that is her right, believe that there's enough evidence to support an indictment.

[DeadmanWalking]

Seriously? That's the level of denial you're going with? Fine. Fuck it, let's dance.

1) Fraud

Trump's University was open for a grand total of five years. It was never accredited. Multiple motions to dismiss have been denied and the case is going forwards. However, even when it was around, it got miserable ratings, failed to deliver on its promises, and its degree is a worthless joke. Trump has been found personally liable once already for operating a for-profit school without a license. The case is People v. Trump Entrepreneur Initiative, New York state Supreme Court, New York County, No. 451463/2013.

His Foundation is also still under investigation, however, it's already been used to settle at least two lawsuits against Trump/his businesses, and once to bribe a DA. It has been shut down in the sense that it can no longer solicit donations, which for a charity is a pretty big problem. The Foundation NEVER did any actions, only gave money to other causes, and Trump himself stopped giving in 2008.

2) Sexual Assault

I wouldn't have put it on the list, but let's not forget, the child rape case is still going forwards. It's bullshit, but it's still not dismissed.

Donald Trump has not been criminally charged with sexual assault in the more recent cases that have come forward, and it's not likely they will due to the time that's passed.

3) Bribery

Trump has been caught, and fined for, illegal lobbying multiple times. In one case, he gave $303,856 to lobby state legislators to oppose the Native American casino just recently mentioned in these very forums, but because he failed to tell the FEC he also spent $150,000 on billboards too, he was fined $250,000 the maximum penalty, which had never been done before. More recently, his Foundation was caught giving $2,500 to a DA who dropped the University fraud case (what a coincidence!) and was fined $25,000 for illegal contributions. That's two counts of guilty.

EDIT EDIT: Trump replaced the $25,000 fine from the Foundation with his own money. That is the sum total of money he's given since 2008. He will very likely choose to deduct that $25,000 he gave to his charity that was a fine for the IRS, letting him technically profit from his crime. What an asshole.

4) Tax Records

Um...I don't even know where to start. They are undisputed. They're right there. Yes, he did his tax returns. Yes, his and his campaign tried to defend his $916 million loss in 1995. Yes, I'm taking that as an admission they're real.

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2...ump-taxes.html

EDIT: Or did you mean the stuff hiding in his other tax returns, the ones he's refused to show us? You can call me biased all you want, but I'm still going to say there's some horrible shit in there. Remember: Conway, while working for Cruz, demanded Trump release them. Then, she started working for Trump. Then, her demands stopped, and reversed. So either:
a) she didn't see them, but assumes they're bad, so I'm allowed to assume they're bad too, or
b) she DID see them, and still doesn't want them released, which if anything makes it worse.

There is no chance that Trump's refusal to release his tax returns is because they're full of sunshine and roses. All his refusal has done is hurt his own campaign. Unless he chooses to release them, I -- and many others -- will assume the worst, and I feel pretty morally justified while doing so.

2) Sexual assault. Trumps Lawyer Chohen during Trumps divorce argued that, "You cannot rape your spouse, there is a very clear case law." Which wasn't a true case law, it use to be but it was struck down in 1984. His wife claimed that after sending him to a hair transplant doctor he was enraged at the results and sexually asaulted his wife while grabbing her by the part of her head where he had the procedure and then started ripping out her hair and a day later when she came out of her room after crying and hiding from him he wanted to know if it hurt as if there was a lesson to be learned from it.

And this 'man' is who the Republicans want to represent them.

[Breccia]

Is there a conviction or judgement against him for fraud? There's a no.

Two judgements, actually. I linked them.

Is there a conviction or judgement against him for bribery? Another no.

Um, yes, I cited two.

If you're not going to read the post, then don't reply with proof you didn't. Also, who let you out of the ignore list? I' putting you back in the basket with the others. Theeeeere you go.

[Merkava]

Two judgements, actually. I linked them.



Um, yes, I cited two.

If you're not going to read the post, then don't reply with proof you didn't. Also, who let you out of the ignore list? I' putting you back in the basket with the others. Theeeeere you go.

At least stick around long enough to see me prove you wrong again.

1. People v. Trump Entrepreneur Initiative, New York state Supreme Court, New York County, No. 451463/2013 wasn't a judgement against Trump for fraud. It was a judgement against him for operating a for-profit school without a license, something that you would know if you had even read your own post that you typed

Trump has been found personally liable once already for operating a for-profit school without a license. The case is People v. Trump Entrepreneur Initiative, New York state Supreme Court, New York County, No. 451463/2013.

You might have known

A trial still must be held to determine whether Trump and the school defrauded students. The judge did toss out some claims and ruled that some evidence was beyond the statute of limitations.

By contrast, the lawsuit he's facing now is for fraud.

I've heard of people not reading links and I've heard of people not reading other posts, but this is the first time I've heard of someone not even reading something that they themselves wrote. You're now guilty of all three. Congratulations, you're the MMO Champ Triple Crown winner.

[Breccia]

2) Trumps Lawyer Chohen during Trumps divorce argued that, "You cannot rape your spouse, there is a very clear case law." Which wasn't a true case law

Even if it was law, that's an appalling defense to use. Jesus.

To be fair, Trump was never actually convicted of sexual assault or rape. He has, however, been accused of assaulting an American Dream Company model, who dropped her complaint about the same month as Trump settled a different lawsuit with the owner of American Dream Company and the assaulted model's husband. It's not technically settling a sexual assault lawsuit, but it's not exactly proof of innocence either.

Oh, and a few more lawsuits too.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/p...ican/91832012/

- - - Updated - - -

At least stick around long enough to see me prove you wrong again.

Oh this should be good.

1. People v. Trump Entrepreneur Initiative, New York state Supreme Court, New York County, No. 451463/2013 wasn't a judgement against Trump for fraud. It was a judgement against him for operating a for-profit school without a license, something that you would know if you had even read your own post that you typed

*ahem*

Trump has been found personally liable once already for operating a for-profit school without a license. The case is People v. Trump Entrepreneur Initiative, New York state Supreme Court, New York County, No. 451463/2013.

How's that intentional blindness working for you? By the way, I'm looking forward to the part where you said "but he was only found personally guilty in a court of law for running a business without a license, not fraud" because
a) it's still criminal
b) he's still guilty
c) you're splitting hairs
d) BACK IN THE BASKET

[Merkava]

How's that intentional blindness working for you? By the way, I'm looking forward to the part where you said "but he was only found personally guilty in a court of law for running a business without a license, not fraud" because

a) it's still criminal
b) he's still guilty
c) you're splitting hairs
d) BACK IN THE BASKET

I asked for proof of fraud. You posted this

1) Fraud

Trump's University was open for a grand total of five years. It was never accredited. Multiple motions to dismiss have been denied and the case is going forwards. However, even when it was around, it got miserable ratings, failed to deliver on its promises, and its degree is a worthless joke. Trump has been found personally liable once already for operating a for-profit school without a license. The case is People v. Trump Entrepreneur Initiative, New York state Supreme Court, New York County, No. 451463/2013.

I'm assuming that you think that case was for fraud, since I asked for proof of fraud, and you linked it under the category heading of Fraud in your reply to me.

Later when I asked if there was a conviction of judgement against him for fraud, you said this ;

Two judgements, actually. I linked them.

And now you're saying that you knew it wasn't fraud all along? Listen, I'll try to be nice. The judgement against him for operating a for profit school is what's allowing the fraud case to go ahead. They're two different things. The Reuters article that I linked above specifically said that.

a) It's not criminal, it's civil.
b) It's not a matter of guilty of innocent, it's liable or not liable.
c) I'm not splitting hairs, they are two different judgments.

To all you guys here; You love fact checking. You clamor for it . You just don't like it when someone uses it against you.

[Cthulhu 2020]

And for good reason...

- - - Updated - - -



What's funny is watching all you sheep bah bah bah away and not see your hypocrisy and ignorance trying to mkeep Trump look like the one not physically well enough to be President.

- - - Updated - - -



Typical left wing defense....I don't remember followed by the media coddling her and acting like she isn't full of shit.

What's really funny is when a Trump supporter calls someone a sheep. While the Republican party held an extremely unfavorable view of Russia before this election season, once Trump started talking smooth about Putin, ALL OF A SUDDEN Republican polling of Russia went from unfavorable to favorable. And this is just one topic.

We've seen numerous times where Trump supporters will suddenly change their mind on something to whatever Trump supports without real thought to the matter, or questioning it. Hell, I can't count the number of times where Trump will say or tweet something, so there's a very clear physical record of it, Trump will be called out on it, he will claim he didn't say it. His supporters will claim he didn't say it. When his tweet or video is played back for all to see, his supporters go "Well he may have said that, but he didn't MEAN it that way!" Then of course Trump will be like "I meant what I said," and all the loyal supporters will go "Oh he meant it all right." Abd then the excuses and justifications for why what he said wasn't all that bad start flying.

Baaaaah
Baaaaaaaaaah
Baaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah

- - - Updated - - -

Is there a conviction or judgement against him for bribery? Another no.

The judge for his Trump U case was given a sizable "donation". Then the judge dropped the case.

Funny how calling it a donation made it perfectly legal.

- - - Updated - - -

How's that intentional blindness working for you? By the way, I'm looking forward to the part where you said "but he was only found personally guilty in a court of law for running a business without a license, not fraud" because
a) it's still criminal
b) he's still guilty
c) you're splitting hairs
d) BACK IN THE BASKET

Welcome to Merkava, no matter how much you prove him wrong, he'll nitpick you and nitpick you and nitpick you and nitpick you until you're a good little goat and pass over his bridge into infraction land.

[Breccia]

Welcome to Merkava, no matter how much you prove him wrong, he'll nitpick you and nitpick you and nitpick you and nitpick you until you're a good little goat and pass over his bridge into infraction land.

His level of denial at the original point I jumped in was just too much to bear. As an educator, willful ignorance makes me sick. But, yeah, Merkava. Not worth my time.

[Merkava]

/The judge for his Trump U case was given a sizable "donation". Then the judge dropped the case.

Funny how calling it a donation made it perfectly legal.

- - - Updated - - -



Welcome to Merkava, no matter how much you prove him wrong, he'll nitpick you and nitpick you and nitpick you and nitpick you until you're a good little goat and pass over his bridge into infraction land.

It wasn't a judge. It was an Attorney General. And if it's legal, then it's not a bribe, is it? Cubby appeared to accuse him of bribery, all I did was ask for proof.

It's not nitpicking. It's a little thing called the presumption of innocence. Something that you guys defended Hillary on, but now that it's not politically convenient for you, you're willing to forget it. At least I've been consistent. If that makes you want to call me a troll, then go ahead.

[Lenonis]

It wasn't a judge. It was an Attorney General. And if it's legal, then it's not a bribe, is it? Cubby appeared to accuse him of bribery, all I did was ask for proof.

I believe even if you can't connect the dots legally to make it a bride I think the donation violated campaign finance rules. I think it's under investigation isn't it?

[Merkava]

His level of denial at the original point I jumped in was just too much to bear. As an educator, willful ignorance makes me sick. But, yeah, Merkava. Not worth my time.

You think that you can colloquially accuse people of having been convicted of things they haven't been convicted of. You think that you can equate one charge with another. When asked for proof, you don't even read what you fucking type. You don't know the difference between a civil and a criminal proceeding. And when you're told that you're wrong, you stick your fingers in your ears and ignore the evidence. Hallmarks of a good educator, no doubt.

- - - Updated - - -

I believe even if you can't connect the dots legally to make it a bride I think the donation violated campaign finance rules. I think it's under investigation isn't it?

We can have a discussion on this that's fine. I want to preface it by saying that I was talking about real world, legal matters. That's what Cubby and Breccia were referencing. Moving on from that...

Yea, maybe it did. I don't know that much about it. I know more about it than The Batman, I mean, but still, that's not saying much. The donation appears to have broken federal law, but I'm not a lawyer. There's a lot of red flags around it, perhaps as much or more than what surrounds Hillary. But again, when I asked Breccia, he/she said that there were two counts of guilty against Trump. That's what I was pushing back against.

[Lenonis]

Yea, maybe it did. I don't know that much about it. I know more about it than The Batman, I mean, but still, that's not saying much. The donation appears to have broken federal law, but I'm not a lawyer. There's a lot of red flags around it, perhaps as much or more than what surrounds Hillary. But again, when I asked Breccia, he/she said that there were two counts of guilty against Trump. That's what I was pushing back against.

Yup -- I just say the question around it and through I'd chime in with what I've heard. It'll likely be hard to prove it was a bribe (not bride like I typo-ed) given plausible deniability by Trump -- but it seems pretty unanimous that it violated laws around donations.

- - - Updated - - -

And yet another typical left wing response. I point out Killary's bullshit and you automatically assume i'm a Trump supporter. I know this might be hard for you to believe, but, I'm not. GASP!

I do hope you realize it makes it hard to believe you aren't a Trump supporter when you call her Killary, right? It's not exactly a baseless accusation.

[Dug]

And yet another typical left wing response. I point out Killary's bullshit and you automatically assume i'm a Trump supporter. I know this might be hard for you to believe, but, I'm not. GASP!

Examples of these "numerous" times would be helpful. Kind of like these:

https://gop.com/the-ultimate-guide-t...ys-flip-flops/

BAAAAAAH indeed!

"I'm not a Trump supporter", never once points out Trumps faults and only bashes his opponents. You're not fooling anyone my guy

[Breccia]

and you automatically assume i'm a Trump supporter.

And this is immediately followed by

https://gop.com/the-ultimate-guide-t...ys-flip-flops/

without any sense of self-awareness or irony.

[Lenonis]

Remember that these forums are the premier circle jerk for liberal think tanks. Your right wing shenanigans are not welcome!

Have you seen the Hillary bashing? Claiming these forums are a liberal circle jerk requires a breathtaking amount of selective reading. There is a ton of pro-Trump and Anti-hillary stuff going on these days.

Also, mandatory LULZ at the victim complex.

[JohnBrown1917]

And yet another typical left wing response. I point out Killary's bullshit and you automatically assume i'm a Trump supporter. I know this might be hard for you to believe, but, I'm not. GASP!

Examples of these "numerous" times would be helpful. Kind of like these:

https://gop.com/the-ultimate-guide-t...ys-flip-flops/

BAAAAAAH indeed!

Clinton is not left-wing, sorry.

[Cthulhu 2020]

And yet another typical left wing response. I point out Killary's bullshit and you automatically assume i'm a Trump supporter. I know this might be hard for you to believe, but, I'm not. GASP!

You throw "Killary" "Leftie" "left wing" around so much as insults (which they barely are) that more typical insults like "Moron" and "libtard" are getting jealous.

Also, of course you're not a Trump supporter. You just constantly ignore his actions that are far worse than Hillary's in favor of constantly deflecting onto unfounded allegations against Hillary.

It also seems you are another one of those who hasn't learned the difference between a policy change and a flip flop. As much as people use "pandering" as if it's some kind of insult, Hillary's stances change with public opinion. As a legislator who is... representing the people, I'd hope that her opinion would also change along with public opinion. The GOP points to her positions on various subjects from before and yet, she has yet to actually flip flop from one stance and then back to her previous one. Conservatives keep pointing to her change in positions as if it's somehow bad, and yet all I'm seeing is a firm change from one stance to another and then sticking with it. Which is a lot better than pretty much any major GOP politician has managed in recent history, as they often go back and forth on a single issue depending upon the day and who they're talking to.

Now if we're talking about Trump, his policy will change on an almost hourly basis, so nobody even really knows where his stance is. Oh but of course you can't call Trump out. Even though you're not a Trump supporter, "Killary" is far worse, despite, you know, sticking to her stances, even if it changed once three years ago.

So why are you not pointing out Trump's flip-flop-flip-flop-flip-flop-flip-flop-flip-flop-flip-flop-flip-flop-flip-flop-flip-flop-flip-flop-flip-flop-flip-flop-flip-flop-flip-flops?

You know, not being a Trump supporter and all that, I'm sure you could give us an honest and fair analysis of both candidates. Kind of like Zenkai, who is truly neutral in his stance of only ever bashing Hillary but never once mentioning how Trump is ten times worse on the exact same subject.

Can't let things like facts and logic spoil conservative fun.

[JaimeGrant]

Looking forward to seeing Trump rag doll that lying criminal warhawk witch. I for one do not want war with Russia, so I am hoping that the American people are smart enough not to allow Hillary to start one.

I think we can safely say he failed on that one