Final Debate 10/19/2016

[Clem72]

Here is an article from 2012 layout out some 'arguments', none of which I'll refute or confirm (I haven't had enough caffeine yet this morning).

http://money.usnews.com/money/blogs...5/11/how-to-improve-social-security-for-women

From that link:

Ironically, the surge of women into the workforce has increased the financial impact of a spouse's death. For a husband and wife with similar Social Security benefits, the death of a spouse would reduce the household's Social Security income by 50 percent. "The effect of this reduction can be devastating," the white paper says, "especially for women living alone after age 65, for women of color, who are more likely to be poor, and for women from low earning or wealth-depleted households."

Which would seem to say that given survivors get a reduced benefit or no longer receive their spouses benefit at all when they have their own, and given that women more often outlive men, that women are disadvantaged. That is some twisted logic. Really, the most fair way to "fix" that issue is to not pay any survivor benefits period.

 

[Midnightrider]

My question to you is this:

If there is evidence of voter fraud and credible questions regarding the legitimacy of the election, do you feel Trump should just accept it and move on, or should he challenge it?

that would depend on the evidence and how close the race actually was. I dont think anyone would fault trump for demanding a recount in an area where he narrowly lost, like what happened in 2000. However, i dont think rejecting the results of the election because you really really really think its rigged is right.

His response to the comment about the emmy's indcates that he is just a sore loser.

 

[This_person]

I think we are keying off of two different parts of that comparison (mood swings vs someone assuming to be possessed of mood swings). If the argument that mood swings should disqualify someone from a position of power is what you were referring to, then that would seem to be an apt comparison and I appreciate the clarification.

However, I read the comparison somewhat differently. The biggest issue with the old argument was that it assumed someone would be unfit because they belonged to a group that is often unfit (based on whatever criteria), vs the Trump argument that he is unfit based on his direct display of that criteria.

My problem is with the label of "unfit" based on the display. If you can find me someone who has never displayed poor judgment or been ill-tempered, I will buy you a mansion (Jesus exempted). Just in last night's debate, both were ill-tempered. We know they've both demonstrated large and consequential poor judgment. So, for one to call the other unfit, or one side to call the other side unfit, is hypocritical at best and pointless.

So, what do we do, vote for Johnson? He's done the same things, too. We'd be left with no people in the US who are "fit" to run for president.

 

[vraiblonde]

that would depend on the evidence and how close the race actually was. I dont think anyone would fault trump for demanding a recount in an area where he narrowly lost, like what happened in 2000. However, i dont think rejecting the results of the election because you really really really think its rigged is right.

But that's not the question I asked.

If there is evidence of vote fraud and credible questions regarding the legitimacy of the election, do you feel Trump should just accept it and move on, or should he challenge it?

There are dozens of hypotheticals I could come up with, but I think my question is simple enough that it doesn't need further explanation.

 

[This_person]

that would depend on the evidence and how close the race actually was. I dont think anyone would fault trump for demanding a recount in an area where he narrowly lost, like what happened in 2000. However, i dont think rejecting the results of the election because you really really really think its rigged is right.

His response to the comment about the emmy's indcates that he is just a sore loser.

The problem is, how many times? The problem in 2000 wasn't a singular recount, is was the call for multiple recounts (similar to how Al Franken got in the Senate - "recount until I win" I believe was his argument). The law mandated a machine recount, which was done. The allowed Mr. Gore to ask for a recount, and he did. The law in that area allows the local jurisdictions to decide whether or not to do the recount. Some did. Gore was not happy with the results, so he demanded more areas recount. FL's Supreme Court violated areas of the FL and US constitutions in their handling of the cases, and SCOTUS told them to knock it off, because the good of the country and, well, law demanded it.

If the election really is rigged, it's reasonable to challenge it on those grounds. Trump's surrogates have said that if there is "widespread" proof of it, Trump would challenge it. Trump never said he would NOT accept it, he said he'd make his determination based on the facts at the time. Somehow, that's bad?

 

[PsyOps]

But that's not the question I asked.

If there is evidence of vote fraud and credible questions regarding the legitimacy of the election, do you feel Trump should just accept it and move on, or should he challenge it?

There are dozens of hypotheticals I could come up with, but I think my question is simple enough that it doesn't need further explanation.

But it's a trap for Trump. He has established his belief that it's rigged. If he wins, what leverage does Clinton have to use against Trump's own words?

 

[PsyOps]

The problem is, how many times? The problem in 2000 wasn't a singular recount, is was the call for multiple recounts (similar to how Al Franken got in the Senate - "recount until I win" I believe was his argument). The law mandated a machine recount, which was done. The allowed Mr. Gore to ask for a recount, and he did. The law in that area allows the local jurisdictions to decide whether or not to do the recount. Some did. Gore was not happy with the results, so he demanded more areas recount. FL's Supreme Court violated areas of the FL and US constitutions in their handling of the cases, and SCOTUS told them to knock it off, because the good of the country and, well, law demanded it.

If the election really is rigged, it's reasonable to challenge it on those grounds. Trump's surrogates have said that if there is "widespread" proof of it, Trump would challenge it. Trump never said he would NOT accept it, he said he'd make his determination based on the facts at the time. Somehow, that's bad?

Are they now going to ask Trump to sign a pledge that he will accept the results no matter what? This is how ridiculous it's gotten as a result of Trump simply being in the race.

 

[This_person]

Are they now going to ask Trump to sign a pledge that he will accept the results no matter what? This is how ridiculous it's gotten as a result of Trump simply being in the race.

A pledge similar to ones others have signed, and then reneged on?

Clinton says the election process is flawed, too; why wasn't she asked if she will abide by the decision of the people as reported by the politicians?

 

[PsyOps]

A pledge similar to ones others have signed, and then reneged on?

Clinton says the election process is flawed, too; why wasn't she asked if she will abide by the decision of the people as reported by the politicians?

I'm glad you got my point.

If Wallace had been more on his game, he would have called her out on Gore's speech last week, in which he threw in there his disagreement with the 2000 results. As the crowd chatted "you won", Hillary smiled and nodded her approval.

 

[Clem72]

So, what do we do, vote for Johnson? He's done the same things, too. We'd be left with no people in the US who are "fit" to run for president.

I honestly don't have an answer for that this cycle. In the past, given the types of candidates we choose for the Republican party, I would have preferred McCain as a politician, Romney if we wanted a business person, or Paul if we wanted a protest candidate.

My belief is that at the end of the day Trump will rely more heavily on his cabinet to make decisions, and I was impressed with Pence during the VP debate, so I when push comes to shove I would vote for Trump.

 

[This_person]

I honestly don't have an answer for that this cycle. In the past, given the types of candidates we choose for the Republican party, I would have preferred McCain as a politician, Romney if we wanted a business person, or Paul if we wanted a protest candidate.

My belief is that at the end of the day Trump will rely more heavily on his cabinet to make decisions, and I was impressed with Pence during the VP debate, so I when push comes to shove I would vote for Trump.

I am not sure for whom I will vote. I know there is no way I can vote for Clinton. I've always been satisfied with Les Evil, but I'm not sure I can even do that this election.

 

[Midnightrider]

But that's not the question I asked.

If there is evidence of vote fraud and credible questions regarding the legitimacy of the election, do you feel Trump should just accept it and move on, or should he challenge it?

There are dozens of hypotheticals I could come up with, but I think my question is simple enough that it doesn't need further explanation.

and i thought my answer was simple enough: it would depend on the evidence. Trumps problem is he always claims things are rigged against him when he loses. Hillary nailed him on that last night and he played right into it with his comment about the emmys.

 

[vraiblonde]

and i thought my answer was simple enough: it would depend on the evidence. Trumps problem is he always claims things are rigged against him when he loses. Hillary nailed him on that last night and he played right into it with his comment about the emmys.

I thought his Emmy comment was funny, clearly in jest. He, unlike Shrillary, is capable of self-deprecation.

What evidence of voter fraud would you consider not pertinent? You know what "evidence" means, right? Synonyms are "proof", "confirmation", and "verification".

The other half of that was "credible questions regarding the legitimacy of the election". Need to get out the dictionary for those big words, too?

 

[Larry Gude]

What he should have ####ing said in response was "Well, you tell me. Will the Democrats get away with voter fraud again? I'm not gonna be OK with that and she, of course, will. If journalists do the job of following down leads, unlike they have in the past, including the well known fraud of the 1960 Kennedy/Nixon race, the fraud in Chicago especially, a place long known for frauds, then, yeah, our democracy is safe. If they remain too afraid to challenge the fraud then it will just keep going on and I won't be happy with that. Unlike HER"

Could he be any more feckless? Could he piss away any more opportunities???

 

[slg1234]

I thought his Emmy comment was funny, clearly in jest. He, unlike Shrillary, is capable of self-deprecation.

Capable of self-deprecation? You mean a man who can't handle an SNL skit? The same man who tries to sue anyone who insults him?

 

[Larry Gude]

Capable of self-deprecation? You mean a man who can't handle an SNL skit? The same man who tries to sue anyone who insults him?

No, no. THAT'S different. You see, uh, well, uhm...it's just different. See?

 

[Midnightrider]

I thought his Emmy comment was funny, clearly in jest. He, unlike Shrillary, is capable of self-deprecation.

What evidence of voter fraud would you consider not pertinent? You know what "evidence" means, right? Synonyms are "proof", "confirmation", and "verification".

The other half of that was "credible questions regarding the legitimacy of the election". Need to get out the dictionary for those big words, too?

you mean like his rants about the emmys were in jest too?

I know exactly what evindence and credible mean. You forget, i made it past 13th grade

I would need evidence of fraud on a scle large enough to have acutally swayed the election. As i said before, trump has been claiming the election was rigged from the beginning. HE was wrong, he is the GOP nom. bitching that he is being treated unfairly is trumps thing.

 

[Clem72]

As i said before, trump has been claiming the election was rigged from the beginning. HE was wrong, he is the GOP nom. bitching that he is being treated unfairly is trumps thing.

Those are not mutually exclusive. The primaries could have been (and likely were) rigged against him, and he still won.

 

[Lurk]

 

[vraiblonde]

You forget, i made it past 13th grade

I forget that pretty much every time I read one of your posts.

I would need evidence of fraud on a scle large enough to have acutally swayed the election. As i said before, trump has been claiming the election was rigged from the beginning. HE was wrong, he is the GOP nom. bitching that he is being treated unfairly is trumps thing.

There is evidence - clear and hard evidence that nobody has disputed and people got fired over - that the DNC rigged the primary in favor of Hillary Clinton. Again, the DNC has never denied what they did, and DWS lost her job over it. So if Trump says that the Dems rig elections, well, he's correct and it's a matter of undisputed record.

It doesn't matter that Bernie is okay with getting screwed and supports the woman who did the screwing. That is not the point. The point IS that there is a precedent of the Democrats rigging elections to get a certain outcome.

While you're at it, please explain all those superdelegates who pledged for Hillary BEFORE their state even held a primary election or caucus. In several cases, the voters went for Bernie, but the superdelegates pledged for Hillary, which gave her a win in the state. If you take a look at superdelegates and how they play into Democrat primaries, rigging elections is built right into the DNC rule book right off the bat.

So tell me again what makes you think they don't rig elections? Do you think that perhaps they only screw their own and rig elections against their own party members, and would never do something like that to a Republican?