Final Presidential Debate - October 19, 2016

[Milchshake]

Does Trump understand the difference between a developing country and a mature economy? Don’t answer that.

[Asiwassaying]

These debates are stupid. I never heard so many non answers in my life. All I have seen is these two using the time as free advertising to spout attack ads.

I had to stop watching the last one , and I was at work with nothing better to do. That's how stupid it was.

[ArguesWithStrangers]

Facts, you have them or you don't. If I see facts I accept them. It's really not a hard concept.

It's late, but for some reason I'm going to try and walk you through this logical process.

Evidence is the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid. So in order to determine what facts apply we must first come up with the claim. Let's use "Hillary is corrupt." To be thorough, corruption is dishonest or fraudulent conduct by those in power. So, working within that definition we must determine from the available body of facts how Hillary has been dishonest or fraudulent while in power.

There are a bunch of examples to pick from, but I'll just use her email server for brevity's sake. Here is the link to my source;

http://www.factcheck.org/2016/09/the...intons-emails/

First bullet, first paragraph.

"The Clinton campaign previously had indicated that her personal emails were deleted before Clinton received a congressional subpoena on March 4, 2015. But the FBI said her emails were deleted “between March 25-31, 2015″ — three weeks after the subpoena. The campaign now says it only learned when the emails were deleted from the FBI report."

Further down.

"Clinton and her campaign pushed back at suggestions that the personal emails were deleted while she was under subpoena. In a July 7, 2015, interview, CNN’s Brianna Keilar asked Clinton “how you decided to delete 33,000 emails and how that deletion was executed.” Clinton did not answer the question, instead saying that “previous secretaries of state have said they did the same thing.” (That was not true, as we wrote at the time.)"

and

"The 31,830 personal emails that Keilar asked about were deleted “sometime between March 25-31, 2015,” according to the FBI. That was about three weeks after Clinton received a House subpoena on March 4, 2015."

It goes on and on and on.

So here we have a body of facts indicating Clinton was dishonest and fraudulent while in a position of power, making her corrupt. Not enough to charge and convict her according to an Obama run Justice department, but more than enough for an observer not wielding the force of law to make a judgement call.

Now I suppose you could rebut by saying my source is lying, or that Hillary was just mistaken, not lying when she said falsehoods. That may be, but if that is the case you are now the one making the claim, and the burden of proof is now on you.

- - - Updated - - -

Almost as amusing as you trying to sit in a normal sized chair and not break it.

Funny, low blow ad hominem, but funny nonetheless.

[Spunt]

So you don't know if she is corrupt then and if she was it was in the latest round wikileaks?

She mishandled classified information, lied about it, but it's okay. Her husband had a talk with the AG and got her off.

Even Comey contradicts her mishandling of classify information. But his [Comey] excuse for her, which oddly doesn't apply to anyone else, is ignorance. Funny, ignorance of the law has always been held as an invalid excuse for breaking the law.

Watch the official government video.

[Wells]

Funny, ignorance of the law has always been held as an invalid excuse for breaking the law.

No, not always. All kinds of laws require intent.

[KrazyK923]

Funny, ignorance of the law has always been held as an invalid excuse for breaking the law.

Except, you know, all the laws where intent has to be established for it to be illegal.

[Spunt]

No, not always. All kinds of laws require intent.

We're not talking about a lay person here. Hillary used to be a lawyer herself.

[Wells]

We're not talking about a lay person here. Hillary used to be a lawyer herself.

The standard for guilt isn't different because she's a lawyer.

[Spunt]

The standard for guilt isn't different because she's a lawyer.

What about being Secretary of State? A Senator? The First Lady?

[Wells]

What about being Secretary of State? A Senator? The First Lady?

No, its one of those nice things about a fair and just legal system. Everyone is held to the same standard. And often the standard requires intent.

[KrazyK923]

I don't like how the email situation was handled, and as bad as this sounds, I think it was more incompetence vs. corruption and her doing something maliciously.

Pretty much.

But because its Hillary Clinton, every single thing she ever does, says, or looks at is a conspiracy.

[Espe]

In what universe do you live where I support trump?

Again, the false equivalencies tell a different story but whatever you say, champ

[Kyriani]

Everything you think you know about how "Republicans treat minorities" is a baseless scam of manufactured outrage drummed up by the real racists in America.

I'm going to take an infraction and tell you to go fuck yourself.

As a minority in this country, I have observed, first hand, over my 40+ years of living, just how Republicans/Conservatives treat minorities. Sure, you can't blanket everyone in a group with exactly the same coat of paint, but the general platform and actions of the Republican party has been anything but a "baseless scam". Republicans have EARNED how they are regarded by minorities precisely because of how they treat them and how they determine policy in regards to them.

So again GO FUCK YOURSELF with your bullshit claim of scams. Likely you're just a wannabe Hooked trying to rile people up. Well you got your wish.

Making light of how minorities are treated is easy when you aren't the one putting up with it, but when you're the person under fire, when you're the person who is looked at as "less then", when you lose your job for no other reason than you are different, are physically assaulted or harassed for no other reason than you are different, have your friggin home BURNED TO THE FUCKING GROUND because some motherfucker didn't like the color of your skin or that the person you're in love with has the same plumbing as you, that's not a scam. That's backwards thinking neanderthals with the nerve to try and claim some sort of moral superiority. And which party houses the bulk of these fucktards? The Republican party.

So, you achieved your goal. You "triggered" someone. But I'll be damned if I just sit and ignore a comment claiming that "how "Republicans treat minorities" is a baseless scam of manufactured outrage" when I've fucking LIVED it. I've got the scars to fucking prove it. Maybe you think its funny, that its a big joke. Well it's not. Its peoples lives. And if you think that's a joke than what the fuck kind of person are you?

infracted - minor flaming

[Mifuyne]

Another clownshow sadly.
No matter which one of the two will win, everybody loses.

[Danin]

I'm going to take an infraction and tell you to go fuck yourself.

As a minority in this country, I have observed, first hand, over my 40+ years of living, just how Republicans/Conservatives treat minorities. Sure, you can't blanket everyone in a group with exactly the same coat of paint, but the general platform and actions of the Republican party has been anything but a "baseless scam". Republicans have EARNED how they are regarded by minorities precisely because of how they treat them and how they determine policy in regards to them.

So again GO FUCK YOURSELF with your bullshit claim of scams. Likely you're just a wannabe Hooked trying to rile people up. Well you got your wish.

Making light of how minorities are treated is easy when you aren't the one putting up with it, but when you're the person under fire, when you're the person who is looked at as "less then", when you lose your job for no other reason than you are different, are physically assaulted or harassed for no other reason than you are different, have your friggin home BURNED TO THE FUCKING GROUND because some motherfucker didn't like the color of your skin or that the person you're in love with has the same plumbing as you, that's not a scam. That's backwards thinking neanderthals with the nerve to try and claim some sort of moral superiority. And which party houses the bulk of these fucktards? The Republican party.

So, you achieved your goal. You "triggered" someone. But I'll be damned if I just sit and ignore a comment claiming that "how "Republicans treat minorities" is a baseless scam of manufactured outrage" when I've fucking LIVED it. I've got the scars to fucking prove it. Maybe you think its funny, that its a big joke. Well it's not. Its peoples lives. And if you think that's a joke than what the fuck kind of person are you?

This is a Good Post that doesn't deserve the infraction it's going to get.

[Stelio Kontos]

This is a Good Post that doesn't deserve the infraction it's going to get.

If it breaks the rules, it deserves the infraction. Regardless of whether you like the post or not.

[Spunt]

No, its one of those nice things about a fair and just legal system. Everyone is held to the same standard. And often the standard requires intent.

18 U.S. Code § 793 - Gathering, transmitting or losing defense information

"(f) Whoever, being entrusted with or having lawful possession or control of any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, note, or information, relating to the national defense, (1) through gross negligence permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of his trust, or to be lost, stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, or (2) having knowledge that the same has been illegally removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of its trust, or lost, or stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, and fails to make prompt report of such loss, theft, abstraction, or destruction to his superior officer—
Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both."

Gross negligence = carelessness.

Intent is irrelevant.

[Forogil]

1.1111111e-17...... You have to consider that Hillary and Trump are one in three hundred million, so first the odds of them being the first choice times the odds of the second choice.

So lets say the odds of someone as corrupt as Hillary is 1 in three hundred million, you times that by the odds of the most culturally sickning person which is now 1 in 299,999,999.

The numbers are wrong by at least a factor 2 million. First just multiplying together the odds would give 1/3e6^2=1.11e-13; and secondly it wouldn't matter in what order you select them so it should be 2e-13.

However, more importantly - there are lots of other persons who, if selected, would see that as a sign that they were the chosen ones and start misbehaving in worse ways.

[Kyriani]

If it breaks the rules, it deserves the infraction. Regardless of whether you like the post or not.

I agree. Its my post and it deserves the infraction it's going to get. I don't need "special treatment" as conservatives like to put it. But my words needed to be said.

[Skroe]

This debate was an utter disaster for Trump. Good heavens.