Trump / Clinton--Final Presidential Debate Thread

  • Thread starter Thread starter Dwyer
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
is it true Hilary accidentally gave out our nuclear weapon response time?
 
YADA said:
$672 Australian = $510 US or $12.75/hour $26, 520 annually
Click to expand...
You make the mistake of converting Australian dollars to US dollars…if you are living in Australia the value of your dollar is $672…and that is the value what you purchase whatever…if someone in Australia bought a computer valued at $672…then that is what they would pay…they don’t convert it to US dollars and say “oh I’ve only got $510”…if I bought one here in the US I don’t say " Wow…I got that cheap…I only paid $672…in Australia they would have to pay $830…same with the hourly rate of $17.70…they don’t get $12.75…they get $17.70 …at one time last year the Australian dollar was $1.07 against the US dollar…still the same scenario would have applied to the computer purchase…don’t confuse it with the exchange rate…you’re not exchanging.
 
YADA said:
The cost of living is much higher in Australia …

numbeo.com/cost-of-living/compare_countries_result.jsp?country1=Australia&country2=United+States

The poster that discussed the paid leave did not factor in the cost of living nor the equivalence of money Australian $$s to US $$s

Especially for Basics like housing, food and purchasing power
Click to expand...
All I did was point out to a poster maternity leave in Australia was 18 weeks and the minimum rate of pay…if you want to throw statistics around I can google a few as well…like the standard of human development rating between the two countries…the cost of healthcare…the average life span…the infant mortality rate…the murder rate…want me to go on?
 
Padres1969 said:
Well so much for that report Clinton had been inciting the violence at Trump rallies…

cnbc.com/2016/10/21/trump-foundation-paid-activist-filmmaker-james-okeefe.html

Looks like Trump paid the reporter who made the false accusation. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
Perhaps you care to explain how several of the individuals and planned disruptive activities which appear in the Project Veritas videos are also corroborated by the Wikileaks emails and by independent MSM news footage taken in Chicago and elsewhere prior to Trump rallies?

youtu.be/-R7A3Qz60tQ

If you mean “so much for the report…” because the Clinton campaign, the WH, and the news media have colluded to bury the story and threaten James O’Keefe, then you may be correct that we likely won’t hear much more about it – but that wouldn’t be because the videos have been proven false.
 
Peter_Plato said:
The implication of someone voting third party (or fourth or fifth) is that some issue or issues the third party voter considers important are to them on the whole far more important than the ones the two major candidates promote.
Click to expand...
That is a far too restrictive description of the reasons why someone may vote for one person vs another. When we vote for people we are voting primarily for people, and only indirectly for policies. Another factor that can enter into the decision is character. Is the candidate believable? Do you believe Clinton when she says she will not raise taxes on anyone making under $250K? Perhaps not. Similarly a person could feel that Trump’s statement of policies are less than truthful. So we vote for people, not for policies.
The implication here is that one would rather waste a vote than make the difficult choice between the positions of the two major candidates…
Click to expand...
I disagree with your characterization of “wasting a vote”. The vote may be ineffective for this one election, but it may have an effect on the future direction of elections. And instead of “difficult choice” I would say “false dichotomy”.
…because of their accumulated character flaws, as if the third party candidates, themselves, have no character flaws.
Click to expand...
One can reasonably hold that a particular third party candidate has much less objectionable character flaws.
In the second, you have to make the case that voting against the flawed characters or personae of the two major candidates warrants your voting for a third party candidate despite that little is known about their character flaws…
Click to expand...
I think that case could be made.
I have never seen either of those cases made compellingly by anyone EVER.
Click to expand...
That those cases are not compelling to you does not mean they are not compelling to someone else. Who are you to say what someone else can find compelling?
How would you even begin to argue that character counts more than policy without assuming a boatload of unprovables?
Click to expand...
If I remember correctly, that was the position of the Republican party in some past elections. But I already showed how character can count more than stated policy, when believability is taken as a product of character. As for unprovables, every voting decision depends somewhat on unprovables.
Or how would you argue that the largely unknown and presumed non-existent character flaws of third party candidates should definitively count against voting for the major party candidates?
Click to expand...
The same way one argues for any candidate - based on what you know and what you believe. I disagree with your use of the word “largely”. I would rather say “somewhat”. This especially true if one believes that the character flaws of the two major party candidates are so bad - so far below the average person - that even a totally unknown person has a better chance of having better character than these two. And many people do believe that.
 
Tomdstone said:
No, i don’t believe Hillary. Hillary has shown that she cannot be trusted to tell the truth. For example, she said she landed under sniper fire in Bosnia.
youtube.com/watch?v=rZHO1vo762c
Click to expand...
If you read my post you will see that my point is we can’t trust any politician to tell the truth. Peter Plato was arguing that we should only consider policy statements made by the candidates when we vote, and not consider character. I’m glad you agree with me that character is important in deciding if we can even trust the candidates’ policy statements.
 
Padres1969 said:
Well so much for that report Clinton had been inciting the violence at Trump rallies…

cnbc.com/2016/10/21/trump-foundation-paid-activist-filmmaker-james-okeefe.html

Looks like Trump paid the reporter who made the false accusation. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
Ok, what is false about the video? This doesn’t change what is on video. An operative PAID to incite violence at Trump rallies is still the story. It is not false and your spin won’t work. Trump supported an investigative reporter. It was a good investment!!!
 
Michael68 said:
Ok, what is false about the video? This doesn’t change what is on video. An operative PAID to incite violence at Trump rallies is still the story. It is not false and your spin won’t work. Trump supported an investigative reporter. It was a good investment!!!
Click to expand...
:)👍
 
Peebo said:
You make the mistake of converting Australian dollars to US dollars…if you are living in Australia the value of your dollar is $672…and that is the value what you purchase whatever…if someone in Australia bought a computer valued at $672…then that is what they would pay…they don’t convert it to US dollars and say “oh I’ve only got $510”…if I bought one here in the US I don’t say " Wow…I got that cheap…I only paid $672…in Australia they would have to pay $830…same with the hourly rate of $17.70…they don’t get $12.75…they get $17.70 …at one time last year the Australian dollar was $1.07 against the US dollar…still the same scenario would have applied to the computer purchase…don’t confuse it with the exchange rate…you’re not exchanging.
Click to expand...
NO I was responding to the poster who was trying to equate the $672 per week there to here … they said that was a pretty good living … You cannot say that just looking at a raw number - you need to see it in context … Thus $672 in Australia equates to $520 here plus the cost of living is higher there than in the US… I was merely attempting to help them see the Australian amount in a currency they normally use.

So - I was not doing what you are implying … I never said I could buy a computer cheaper here than there or any of the things you imply above.

Monetary differences between countries is always changing … And just as in the US - the cost of living and wages are different in various states and regions in Australia as well.

The minimum wage here in the states varies too . .there is the federal minimum, State minimum, some Regional minimums and even City and or County minimum wages … all are slightly different …
 
Sy_Noe said:
…And Trump supporters’ arguments are a revision of history. Gore was largely lauded for pursuing – and ultimately dropping – his challenge to the election results in 2000. Florida’s vote count that year showed Gore losing by a fraction of a percentage point to Bush, just a few hundred votes. Gore pursued a recount and legal options, before accepting defeat after the Supreme Court ruled…
Click to expand...
I remember this election and the recount of the “hanging chad” votes that were rejected by the machines and had to be counted by hand.

I also remember the manufacturers of the voting devices demonstrating to the press over and over that the only way to get a hanging chad was by punching multiple ballots at a time- in other words voter fraud.

And I remember a democrat being caught with a machine in the back of his car.

I think Gore was mad because they didn’t fake enough votes.
 
kat07 said:
My uncle’s grandfather was MA Senator James P. Timilty, an Irish bootlegger and close friends with Joe Kennedy. My uncle’s uncle was Boston Police Commissioner, Joe Timilty - JFK’s godfather. He was also Rose’s dear friend, and escorted her to events, while covering for Joe who was out gallivanting with other women. JFK was a lot more than just a sex addict and same is true of his father Joe; however the media fiercely hid all this from the public, publishing fairy-tale versions of JFK’s presidency as "Camelot.”

What happened to the 11-year rule? Trump said the word “p*ssy” 11 years ago, in a secretly recorded conversation. Eleven years before Sen. Teddy Kennedy ran for president, he killed a girl - but he ran, not only without apology, but, as the “Conscience of the Democratic Party.”

The media’s enthusiastic interest in sex scandals goes back and forth, depending upon their needs at the moment. When the last name of the perp is Kennedy or Clinton, they’re not interested. When it’s “the Duke lacrosse team”: Guilty. As general rule, the only sex stories our media accept and believe are the false ones.

Emma Sulkowicz, or “Mattress Girl,” claimed she had been raped by a fellow student at Columbia University and that administrators refused to take action against her rapist. Mattress Girl’s claim that administrators at Columbia turned a deaf ear to her brutal rape was entirely credible to our media and political class. After Mattress Girl had spent a couple of years accepting awards, her alleged rapist finally released her texts to him, both before and after the alleged rape. I won’t post all them but they were very sexually explicit, and there were others less explicit but were texts like: "I love youuuu” , "I wanna see yoyououoyou” "I love you Paul. Where are you?!?!?!?!” .

Unlike Trump’s secretly recorded hot-mic conversation 11 years back, the Times never thought it helpful to quote any of Sulkowicz’s messages to Paul , much less on its front page, bold face. The closest the Times came to acknowledging these texts was to carefully note that the two had "traded mutually affectionate messages.”

The same individuals who presented us the Duke lacrosse case, Mattress Girl and the Rolling Stone abomination, but who quietly left John Edwards’ sex outrage to the National Enquirer; Bill Clinton’s serial rapes to private defendant Paula Jones; and the Kennedy family’s harlotry to investigative journalists Seymour Hersh (30 years later) and Leo Damore (20 years later) are the people who let us know they’re almost certain Donald Trump is a groper.

Throughout 2009, good, decent Americans who opposed Obamacare were called the name of a gay sex act hundreds of times on TV (MSNBC/CNN – Anderson Cooper). Among the people using this sexual slur were members of Congress such as U.S. Sen. Robert Menendez and Rep. Barney Frank. Were they fit to hold office?

The same media gasping in horror at the word "pssy" sure didn’t mind Sara Palin and many other female Republics being called a cnt repeatedly on Comedy Central broadcast. And when I say “didn’t mind,” I mean they thought it was awesome.

The same media that are pretending to believe the use of a bad word equivalent to rape don’t care about real rape, real sexual assault, real harlotry, even real homicide, depending on who did it. But saying “p*ssy” 11 years ago is over the line.

A couple years ago, Sen. Al Franken joked on a Comedy Central roast about producer Rob Reiner having anal sex with his children. Does Hillary and the media and others think he’s fit to be a U.S. senator? Is he fit enough for the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, but not the Senate Finance Committee?

None of these were leaks of secretly recorded conversations considered a hanging offense in the Clinton years. These vulgarities were intentionally, publicly broadcast by the same media that today pretend to need smelling salts after hearing the word “p*ssy.”

At least this new proper standard explains why rappers like Jay Z are banned from the White House. Oh wait.

Maybe realizing their oh so clean virgin act wasn’t cutting it, the media turned to their let’s pretend we don’t understand English method of argument, and claimed that Trump was confessing to having committed a sexual assault. Trump said: "When you’re a star, they let you do it. You can do anything. Grab 'em by the p*ssy. You can do any of that. (Laughter.)” Journalists spun this into “sexual assault” by being literal on the “grab” part, non-figurative on the “you” part, and on the “they let you do it” part? Stone cold deaf. If they let you do it, it’s not an assault.

con’t below…
Click to expand...
👍
 
tweedlealice said:
Hi,
Trump evolved to be pro life and clearly proclaimed it. Thanks to Melania and Ivanka.
He has picked his Supreme court judges. He went to Heritage Foundation to get list. It is a conservative think tank. So, on that issue alone God has to get him in.
The trilateral commission and skull and bones have been putting their candidates forward. They are our G8. The popular vote is pushed into their candidate most of the time. The electoral college makes the winner. Example: NAFTA, Bush I was leaving and Clinton was moving in. Bush I started the talk of NAFTA. CLINTON
follows and initiates NAFTA. I say to myself why a Rep and DEM want the same things. I thought I don’t want Mexican pottery and blouses,skirts and hats.
Well, Bush I ,Clinton and Bush II all went to Yale. All.belong to SKULL AND BONES.
These are our wealthy people. They want profits. Unions raised salaries so much our factories left.
LOOK UP NATIONAL DEBT UNDER YEARS OF CLINTONS. They profess a surplus. Unless I’m reading it wrong, there was a deficit. Did you notice when the Clinton left, and Bush II went in. Within 2 weeks factories started to close. Each week 1 or 2 more factories closed. Bush wasn’t in long enough to cause
trouble . How or why did they hold on till the Clinton left.??? Curious.
Research: CLINTON CRIMES IN ARKANSAS. Watch video if you can. It is the real people involved. The typed documents have same info. They worked w cocaine cartel and gave it away free. The cartel are the ones that left a trail of 114 bodies
In their wake. One decapitated man’s cause of death was a suicide. Now, really, one could get through one coratid and trachea but, he’d pass out by then.
I found this stuff out years ago. Not conspiracy. It is real.
God help us.
Hear our prayers , Oh Lord.
David had his Bathsheba and God still used him.
Trump has good people around him.
Clinton wikileaks w Podesta and our Catholic church being infiltrated on purpose
By left wing pro abortion people is outrageous. They are after Evangelists, too.
Father Johnathon was furious on Fox news. The NY Cardinal was very mad.
Their votes have changed. George Soros backed the two groups. Catholics United and Catholics Allegience for good ??? Forgot word. Soros as a child in Hungry would find out where Jews were hiding and tell his Dad who worked for Nazis.
St. Michael defend us in battle. Protect against the snares of the devil.
in Christ’s love
Tweedlealice
Click to expand...
👍
 
Sy_Noe said:
Nope no one forgets. See post 92.

And Trump supporters’ arguments are a revision of history. Gore was largely lauded for pursuing – and ultimately dropping – his challenge to the election results in 2000. Florida’s vote count that year showed Gore losing by a fraction of a percentage point to Bush, just a few hundred votes. Gore pursued a recount and legal options, before accepting defeat after the Supreme Court ruled.

“I accept the finality of the outcome, which will be ratified next Monday in the Electoral College,” Gore said on Dec. 13, 2000. “And tonight, for the sake of our unity as a people and the strength of our democracy, I offer my concession.”

politico.com/story/2016/10/al-gore-donald-trump-results-230062
Click to expand...
Yep, he was lauded by your side! Yep, he sure was! Which points out the current hypocrisy. and absolutely fake outrage!!! Its embarrassing for your side!!! This is so fake and an insult to the American people! Reality Check! Gore challenged the results and he is lauded. Your words. Trump leaves that option open and you freak out? Excuse me. Can you say HYPOCRITE?
 
LeafByNiggle said:
If you read my post you will see that my point is we can’t trust any politician to tell the truth. Peter Plato was arguing that we should only consider policy statements made by the candidates when we vote, and not consider character. I’m glad you agree with me that character is important in deciding if we can even trust the candidates’ policy statements.
Click to expand...
I am never disappointed by the creativity of people reading their own ideas or what they want me to have said into what they claim I was arguing.

Read my post again, if you don’t mind. I never said “we should ONLY consider policy statements…and not consider character.”

What I did say was, and I quote, “How would you even begin to argue that character counts more than policy without assuming a boatload of unprovables?”

To be clear, my argument was that for anyone to use character flaws as a reason to go third party, they have to make the case that character counts MORE THAN policy when making an election decision.

That does not translate to “we should ONLY consider policy statements…and not consider character,” without gigantic editorial liberties being imposed upon what I wrote.

Apology accepted. :tiphat:
 
LeafByNiggle said:
If you read my post you will see that my point is we can’t trust any politician to tell the truth. Peter Plato was arguing that we should only consider policy statements made by the candidates when we vote, and not consider character. I’m glad you agree with me that character is important in deciding if we can even trust the candidates’ policy statements.
Click to expand...
Considering who you are voting for, character doesn’t seem to matter much.
 
Michael68 said:
Ok, what is false about the video? This doesn’t change what is on video. An operative PAID to incite violence at Trump rallies is still the story. It is not false and your spin won’t work. Trump supported an investigative reporter. It was a good investment!!!
Click to expand...
I would suggest that you do view the video I linked to in post #408. The Project Veritas video has been corroborated in a number of ways.

This leftist idea that dismissing an investigative video out of hand and for no reason, just 'cause they don’t like it, is sufficient to discredit everything in the video, is a bizarre one, to say the least.
 
Peter_Plato said:
Perhaps you care to explain how several of the individuals and planned disruptive activities which appear in the Project Veritas videos are also corroborated by the Wikileaks emails and by independent MSM news footage taken in Chicago and elsewhere prior to Trump rallies?

youtu.be/-R7A3Qz60tQ

If you mean “so much for the report…” because the Clinton campaign, the WH, and the news media have colluded to bury the story and threaten James O’Keefe, then you may be correct that we likely won’t hear much more about it – but that wouldn’t be because the videos have been proven false.
Click to expand...
I thought it was supposed to be Russia and Mr. Putin who were meddling in the US elections? But it looks like it was Hillary’s campaign all along playing dirty tricks to make Mr. Trump look bad.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top