Final Presidential Debate - October 19, 2016

[LaserSharkDFB]

Do we actually know this? There is a whole spectrum of outcomes of an audit from "everything is great" to "you are going to jail for tax evasion."

The fact he isn't in jail isn't proof he filed his taxes correctly.

We don't even know for sure that he's being audited right now.

[Breccia]

I see people are loosing sight of the real problem with Trump not paying taxes -- it proves his tax plan is a big lie -- that the rich pay too much in taxes and we need to lower them in order to have better trickle down nonsense.

I don't think people are losing sight of that. But now that you say it, it would have been great to bring up at the debates.

[waitwutt]

So you're saying you want to be a dishonorable, backstabbing, lying country. That'll make America safe again? And what does this have to do with politifact? You're still dodging the question, because you know you're wrong.

what question are you referring to?

I have about 30 people asking me different things at once.

when did I say I want America to be dishonorable backstabbing, lying? for not wanting to help SAUDI ARABIA in a fight? a country that sponsors terrorism. a country that has ties to the 911 bombers? lol k.

[Noxx79]

what question are you referring to?

I have about 30 people asking me different things at once.

when did I say I want America to be dishonorable backstabbing, lying? for not wanting to help SAUDI ARABIA in a fight? a country that sponsors terrorism. a country that has ties to the 911 bombers? lol k.

I've mentioned Politifact in every single response I've had. How is politifact biased?

[mvaliz]

This video of Oberman condemning Donald Dump's treasonous words of questioning the legitimacy of the race because it will hurt his feelz MUST BE SHARED!

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ph556N8TmBk

[waitwutt]

What does this have to do with Politifact and their supposed bias? Again, just because it makes your God-King look bad, doesn't mean that they're biased.

because they say he doesn't have a fiduciary responsibility to his business and family not to give the government free money that he doesn't need to give... when does.. in order to be a good business man and husband/father not to give the govt free money so they can send it to iran or whatever country decides to donate to the Clinton foundation.

[waitwutt]

What are you even talking about now? You're spouting gibberish.

BTW, Trump is the one who doesn't want us to assist our allies unless we have them "pay their fair share" -- which they are already doing

nice pivot ya got there

[Breccia]

because they say he doesn't have a fiduciary responsibility to his business and family not to give the government free money that he doesn't need to give... when does.

If Trump's businesses were in such trouble that they'd need his personal money to avoid closing or going bankrupt, maybe you could defend this.

Problem is, it's a matter of public record that
a) a lot of them have closed, or gone bankrupt
b) he didn't give them personal money

So your argument is invalid.

[Noxx79]

nice pivot ya got there

Says the one who can't answer a question about politifact.

Please answer the question? How is politifact biased?

It's also hard to pivot when you've spouted such nonsense that there's really no point to pivot from.

- - - Updated - - -

because they say he doesn't have a fiduciary responsibility to his business and family not to give the government free money that he doesn't need to give... when does.. in order to be a good business man and husband/father not to give the govt free money so they can send it to iran or whatever country decides to donate to the Clinton foundation.

But he doesn't. You're literally making up facts. What color is the sun in your universe? Is it purple? It's really impossible to take someone who makes up their own reality seriously. In November, I think you may have to seek medical attention as your entire reality will collapse upon you.

[waitwutt]

OH MY GOD! Turns out the Saudis caused the housing bubble!

Nah, just kidding. You're going to have to defend the "pay to play" arguments with something better than the '08 crash. Like, evidence or something. The Clinton Foundation is not her personal money, so good luck with that.

just a guess. you didn't do the research did you.
Clinton (bill) passed a bill removing lending restriction for banks allowing them to make bad loans. right when they left office the banks payed the Clintons back for that one, in millions of dollars for speeches. that's where it started, now look up how collateralized mortgage obligations work. or watch the movie "the big short" while simultaneously have investopia open on your computer.

[DeadmanWalking]

That was always the dumbest thing about the tax returns. Of course he was never going to release them before the election. If he lost, he wouldn't have to, and if he won then they were obviously not important to getting him elected. It's amazing how many of his minions willingly swallowed that line of bullshit.

Or how about, "I will show my plans for isis once I am elected president. I want them to be surprised!" then later, "My plan is to make the generals give me a plan to fight isis in the first month of my presidency." when pushed about not having a plan, "When I make the plan, it will be an amazing plan! It will be great, wonderful. I'll listen to their plan and if it is better than my plan, then great, if not we will go with my plan."

Which since I am not gullible heard, "I don't have a plan and this half ass excuse is suppose to cover my ass so I don't actually have to put any effort into learning what I am dealing with and figuring out how to deal with it without someone shooting holes in how little I actually know."

There are a lot of gullible people out there, why do you think you constantly see people you thought were intelligent on social media sharing obvious scams like, "Win tickets to Disney-world.'s" or how con men make lifelong careers out of screwing over gullible people? Donald is a master at taking advantage of gullible people. "I can't do/explain/show X until I am elected." should be a red flag in anyones viewpoint.

My advice for everyone: If any person running for office says something that makes you cry, slam your dick in a book and jolt yourself back to reality.

[waitwutt]

Sounds like you don't understand our tax laws any better than Trump does. The good thing for Trump is he can afford to hire the best tax people in the business to help him out. You appear to just be flailing around hoping to be right.

and you... aren't flailing around hoping to be right because you are providing sources for your claims?

[Skroe]

Hmm. I would think and would hope that you are right, but I would place that contingent on having a Democratic president then, lmao.

Republicans don't really seem to show any value in our allies like Democrats do and they continuously snub their noses at NATO.

I accept your counterargument on that ground.

Paradoxically, it is actually less likely than more likely that the US mobilize NATO.

Think about it like this. In a limited war with Russia would the aim of the US be to eliminate the Russian threat for all time? Of course not. That would require a large scale land invasion, use of nuclear weapons, an occupying army... the kinds of things we don't want to do.

The aim would then be in that case, to return to the status quo ante as fast as possible, with as little loss of life and material as possible while also delivering a strong deterrent message.

If Russia were to say, invade Estonia, it is likely that the US, maybe the UK, Lativa, Lithuania and Poland would form the core of the military response while the rest of NATO would offer logistical support, but the one thing the US would not do would be to mobilize all of NATO. Such an action would be highly escalatory, and the US goal would be to keep Europe out of the fighting (and physically undamaged, from a life and economic perspective as well) unless it absolutely needed it. If the US managed to keep the fighting in Estonia, and not have it spread to Romania, Bulgaria, or Poland, it would be far easier to give Russia plentiful off-ramps to adopt a de-escalatory posture. This especially makes sense when you consider the likely international response would be Germany, Japan and China dragging the US and Russia to the negotiating table to put an end to the fighting before it spreads.

The "off-ramps" this is important. An autocratic regime like Putin's requires saving of face and being able to present an image (usually fake) that policies from the top (such as a limited fight with the west) delivered something positive to Russian interests. The West's entire political structure is different. It is interested in practical deterrence against future aggression but autocrat-style "saving of face" has never mattered.

So you'd see a limited tit-for-tat. Russians would make a push into Estonia, so the US would target Russian military forces in Estonia, but wouldn't do anything about Kalingrad (besides keep an eye on it). If Russian's then struck US staging grounds in Poland, then we'd go after Kalingrad. And if Russia then went after US assets in Germany, at that point, we'd probably start striking Russian military power inside Russia (which could also be moved up if Russia decides to utilize Air defense within Russian territory over Eastern European Air space).

The US would have from the outset, a huge interest in making sure that the conflict doesn't spread to other countries outside of Estonia, and of course, doesn't get to the point where RUssia feels so overmatched that it has no choice but to Deploy nuclear weapons. For example the US could send its stealth bombers and, from the air with thermobaric bombs, wipe out vast portions of Russian ground forces while they are still on the road in Western Russia, headed for Estonia. But if Russia lost 30,000 troops in two days of vicious stealth bombing raids using conventional weapons... a ground force which is already out numbered six to one compared to NATO would likely be highly inclined to even the odds and use a tactical nuclear weapon.

TO put it another way, unless the US wanted a nuclear war, it would have to treat the entire situation with kids gloves, which would mean doing highly counter-intuitive things like not Mobilizing NATO within the first hour... like not setting Russia on fire with cruise missiles in the first hour... like not wiping out every Russian battalion with Stealth Bomber raids. Because the goal would be to get back to the status quo ante with Russia having learned a bit of a lesson... not destroying the foundations of the Russian State.

So when would the US kick NATO into high gear? When it became clear Russia was going to do a full court press for Eastern European dominion. But modern Russia has neither the manpower, wealth, logistical train, technology nor warfighting experience to do that. This is not the battle hardened Red Army of the 1950s. To even try that would be for Russia to destroy itself. Trying that in about 15% of Ukraine (Donbass) severely stressed their Army.

[DeadmanWalking]

just a guess. you didn't do the research did you.
Clinton (bill) passed a bill removing lending restriction for banks allowing them to make bad loans. right when they left office the banks payed the Clintons back for that one, in millions of dollars for speeches. that's where it started, now look up how collateralized mortgage obligations work. or watch the movie "the big short" while simultaneously have investopia open on your computer.

The housing bubble started long long before Clinton was ever elected, which is why it got so big because it was so integral to the economic system that banks ate their own liquidity rather than let it burst. You should not rely on a movie for your historical knowledge.

[waitwutt]

I'm sorry but I have to jump in here and call you out on being completely incorrect. Fiduciary responsibility is actually exactly that it is a legally binding responsibility.

I borrowed 5 bucks from my brother. I have a fiduciary responsibility to pay him back. is it legally binding? no. but is it binding in the sense that it would make me a dick if I didn't pay him back? yes.

[Breccia]

just a guess. you didn't do the research did you.

You mean about how mortgage-backed securities in combination of the introduction of variable-rate mortgages were heavily involved? Course I have.

Also, if Trump can continue to blame Obama for leaving Iraq (a contractual obligation signed by President Bush) and Bill Clinton for NAFTA (set up and at least honorarily signed by the other President Bush), then I get to claim the housing crisis took place under Bush's watch and blame him. Maybe you think that's unfair, but hey, if someone running for President gets to play fast and loose with timelines, who am I to object?

[waitwutt]

The housing bubble started long long before Clinton was ever elected, which is why it got so big because it was so integral to the economic system that banks ate their own liquidity rather than let it burst. You should not rely on a movie for your historical knowledge.

mmm. nope Im an banker for one of the countries largest banks specializing in investments.

that movie puts it in layman's terms. the practice of putting mortgages into CMO's had been happening for a long time but the restrictions kept the bubble from bursting and kept the lenders in check.

when Clinton removed the lending restrictions, it became the wild west. you could lend to low income low credit score people with 5 year arms (BAAAD BAAD loans) then they could pay a credit agency to put a high rating on the mortgage and put those mortgages in high rated cmo's which just about everyone with investments had investments in. when the 5 year arms (and similar devices) came due, people couldn't pay which made the cmo's worthless. boom, crash.

that's a simplified version but basically what happened. you wanna know how they fixed it? they REVERSED what Clinton did and put restrictions on lending. cmos still exists. credit agencies still exists. you can still invest in cmos and people still do. but now its regulated.

[Breccia]

"I can't do/explain/show X until I am elected." should be a red flag in anyones viewpoint.

Seconded.

Trump did have a medical plan on his site with specifics, and he did have a tax plan with some specifics. ("I will close loopholes and cut waste" is not specific and his numbers did not come anywhere close to adding up) His tax plan was loaded with personal gain of course, while his medical plan, admittedly detailed, involves uninsuring tens of millions of people and block granting Medicaid and hoping the states could figure it out. But he didn't have much of anything else except "Believe me". Which a provable majority of the American people don't.

- - - Updated - - -

mmm. nope Im an banker

We don't believe you.

[DeadmanWalking]

mmm. nope Im an banker for one of the countries largest banks specializing in investments.

that movie puts it in layman's terms. the practice of putting mortgages into CMO's had been happening for a long time but the restrictions kept the bubble from bursting and kept the lenders in check.

when Clinton removed the lending restrictions, it became the wild west. you could lend to low income low credit score people with 5 year arms (BAAAD BAAD loans) then they could pay a credit agency to put a high rating on the mortgage and put those mortgages in high rated cmo's which just about everyone with investments had investments in. when the 5 year arms (and similar devices) came due, people couldn't pay which made the cmo's worthless. boom, crash.

that's a simplified version but basically what happened. you wanna know how they fixed it? they REVERSED what Clinton did and put restrictions on lending. cmos still exists. credit agencies still exists. you can still invest in cmos and people still do. but now its regulated.

You must be the only banker in the world who hasn't figured out how to use the shift key and says cuck a lot, like I said I am not gullible and I smell bullshit from a mile away which is why I can't vote Trump.

[waitwutt]

Stop using the term "fiduciary responsibility" when you don't know what it is.

A fiduciary is a trust that has a legal responsibility to what's in the best interest of their client or share holders. Your awful piss poor example would just be a loan for which you have a responsibility (not fiduciary) to pay back.

Please stop using terms you don't understand....

fiduciary-
involving trust, especially with regard to the relationship between a trustee and a beneficiary

A fiduciary is a person who holds a legal OR ETHICAL relationship of trust

responsibility
the state or fact of having a duty to deal with something or of having control over someone

not that complicated. just because its not legally binding doesn't disqualify the term as correct for the situation.

Please stop using terms you don't understand....