| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Richard 77
Joined: 19 Nov 2004
Posts: 4142
Location: Lake Mills, Wisconsin
Back to top |
 Posted: 10/19/16 11:48 pm ::: |
Reply  |
|
Golden opportunity missed. What a great drinking game the third debate could have been. You would have to take a drink each time Trump said the word Lie or Liar. We would have had a drunk and happy nation this evening.
Truth be told, I lost interest in the debate halfway through. As if he could say the word liar enough that people would actually change their mind from her to him._________________ If you cannot inspire yourself to read a book about women's basketball, or any book about women's sports, you cannot inspire any young girl or boy to write a book about them. http://www.lulu.com/spotlight/Richardstrek |
|
GlennMacGrady
Joined: 03 Jan 2005
Posts: 8230
Location: Heisenberg
Back to top |
| Posted: 10/19/16 11:53 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| Ex-Ref wrote: |
Stephen Colbert on Trump's comment "I'll keep you in suspense."
| Quote: |
| Suspense! Democracy is gonna end with a cliffhanger. I guess we're all gonna have to wait until Nov. 9 to find out if we still have a country. If Donald Trump is in the moooood for a peaceful transfer of power or if he's just going to wipe his fat ass with the constitution. |
And on the location of the debate:
| Quote: |
| I was surprised Trump agreed to debate in Vegas, especially at University of Nevada because he hasn't had a lot of luck with casinos or universities. |
|
I didn't understand the question. Every losing candidate has to "accept" the ultimate result of an election. And since Trump is not the current president and just a private citizen, he wouldn't be "transferring power" to Clinton if she wins; Obama would be transferring the power.
The second problem is that Trump gave a muddled answer when he said something like he'd wait and see. The specific topic question from Chris Wallace was about election rigging. What Trump clearly meant, in that topical context, was that he was reserving his right to ask for recounts in close state contests and to file lawsuits in any state were there is evidence of ballot fraud or other vote count improprieties.
All that is exactly what Al Gore did in Florida and other states in 2000. He asked for recounts in some states, and then hired an army of attorneys, led by famous trial lawyer David Boies, to file dozens of lawsuits in Florida challenging vote counts in many Florida counties and asking for injunctions. The cases went to the Florida Supreme Court twice and the U.S. Supreme Court twice before Gore finally conceded the election after five weeks of "constitutional crisis".
Trump has a perfect right to do the same thing under similar close-call circumstances, as does Clinton. And there's no doubt both will go to the lawyers if the election is a squeaker.
However, I don't think much of this came through to the average viewer, who probably interpreted the dynamic as an evasive answer to a simplistic question. |
|
Howee
Joined: 27 Nov 2009
Posts: 15740
Location: OREGON (in my heart)
Back to top |
| Posted: 10/19/16 11:55 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
He tried. He really did. He simply couldn't resist, tho...."Unfit? YOU'RE Unfit!" Age 10.
I liked her zinger re: the Clinton foundation/pay to play ("we can't know what Donald gave, cuz he's not released his returns yet")
The one thing that bugged me MOST? The moderator posing to Trump the very specific question on his favor of assault rifles! Donald came no where CLOSE to addressing that, and Chris didn't hold him to it--NOR DID HILLARY!
Overall, I do believe she'll have scored a victory on points alone. I loved her reiteration of her accomplishment over 30 years in service--it wasn't a new spiel, but it didn't come off as hackneyed as the past debates. And her explanation of her position on the SCOTUS nominees was terrific, imo.
_________________
Oregon: Go Ducks!
"Inévitablement, les canards voleront"
|
|
justintyme
Joined: 08 Jul 2012
Posts: 8407
Location: Northfield, MN
Back to top |
|
Ex-Ref
Joined: 04 Oct 2009
Posts: 8949
Back to top |
| Posted: 10/20/16 12:05 am ::: |
Reply |
|
| .k
Last edited by Ex-Ref on 10/20/16 12:06 am; edited 2 times in total |
|
Howee
Joined: 27 Nov 2009
Posts: 15740
Location: OREGON (in my heart)
Back to top |
| Posted: 10/20/16 12:06 am ::: |
Reply |
|
| GlennMacGrady wrote: |
I didn't understand the question. Every losing candidate has to "accept" the ultimate result of an election. And since Trump is not the current president and just a private citizen, he wouldn't be "transferring power" to Clinton if she wins; Obama would be transferring the power. |
Like you, I was a bit befuddled when the pundits were aghast at that. But my husband explained it to me this way: if a candidate like Trump should lose the election, tradition mandates that the loser make a concession publically, to the effect that "The People Have Spoken", i.e., "Folks, we gotta live with this now!"
Trump and his followers--at least, the deplorable portion of them--could decide that this is the moment to go rogue and NOT support the new administration, and foment destruction and violence amongst Trump supporters all along the way.
"Problems" in key areas? We've lived through that--See: Florida, 2000. And Gore was correct to press that process. BUTTT....WHEN THE DUST SETTLED, Gore gave his formal concession to the Bush campaign as the rightful leader. If Trump alleges problems? Sort them out, but if they're not in his favor, how will he react ? THIS is what sensible minds are puzzling over.
_________________
Oregon: Go Ducks!
"Inévitablement, les canards voleront"
|
|
justintyme
Joined: 08 Jul 2012
Posts: 8407
Location: Northfield, MN
Back to top |
| Posted: 10/20/16 12:08 am ::: |
Reply |
|
Just out of curiosity, if they don't want the audience to react, why even bother having one?
And Clinton's answer on abortion is exactly why we need more women in power and why it is about time to have one as president.
_________________
↑↑↓↓←→←→BA
|
|
justintyme
Joined: 08 Jul 2012
Posts: 8407
Location: Northfield, MN
Back to top |
| Posted: 10/20/16 12:13 am ::: |
Reply |
|
| Howee wrote: |
| GlennMacGrady wrote: |
I didn't understand the question. Every losing candidate has to "accept" the ultimate result of an election. And since Trump is not the current president and just a private citizen, he wouldn't be "transferring power" to Clinton if she wins; Obama would be transferring the power. |
Like you, I was a bit befuddled when the pundits were aghast at that. But my husband explained it to me this way: if a candidate like Trump should lose the election, tradition mandates that the loser make a concession publically, to the effect that "The People Have Spoken", i.e., "Folks, we gotta live with this now!"
Trump and his followers--at least, the deplorable portion of them--could decide that this is the moment to go rogue and NOT support the new administration, and foment destruction and violence amongst Trump supporters all along the way.
"Problems" in key areas? We've lived through that--See: Florida, 2000. And Gore was correct to press that process. BUTTT....WHEN THE DUST SETTLED, Gore gave his formal concession to the Bush campaign as the rightful leader. If Trump alleges problems? Sort them out, but if they're not in his favor, how will he react ? THIS is what sensible minds are puzzling over. |
Yes. That is what this question was about. Him suggesting that the election is rigged. If the vote came down to the numbers of the Bush/Gore election no one would expect him to not seek a recount. But the question was about after the winner had been determined. Would he accept it as a fair election or would he still claim it was rigged against him.
And this is where every down ballot Republican in a close election just facepalmed. Because they are going to have to answer for his insanity.
_________________
↑↑↓↓←→←→BA
|
|
justintyme
Joined: 08 Jul 2012
Posts: 8407
Location: Northfield, MN
Back to top |
| Posted: 10/20/16 12:16 am ::: |
Reply |
|
| And big ups to Chris Wallace. He did an outstanding job as a moderator.
_________________
↑↑↓↓←→←→BA
|
|
GlennMacGrady
Joined: 03 Jan 2005
Posts: 8230
Location: Heisenberg
Back to top |
| Posted: 10/20/16 12:19 am ::: |
Reply |
|
If there are no legal bases for recounts or ballot impropriety lawsuits, but Trump just refuses to concede out of pure hissy fit, then he'll be a jerk who is totally impotent to "do" anything regarding the transfer of presidential power. He'll simply retain his current status as a private citizen with no governmental powers at all, and disappear back into his company, and Clinton will become the President without a hitch.
No one has to "concede" for an election to be decided. The Constitution and House of Representatives decide the final election results. Trump apparently hasn't "conceded" that he lost an Emmy contest, but the contents of his cerebrum on this issue is irrelevant and impotent. The Emmy voters decide the winner.
Much ado about nothing -- unless the election is so close as to be legally contestable. |
|
GlennMacGrady
Joined: 03 Jan 2005
Posts: 8230
Location: Heisenberg
Back to top |
| Posted: 10/20/16 12:35 am ::: |
Reply |
|
| Queenie wrote: |
| his gross misunderstanding of late-term/partial-birth abortions |
Just curious what you mean by this.
As for the overall debate itself, I thought Trump got off slightly more effective policy points while Hillary got off slightly better personal attack points. If either of them "won", it wasn't by any sort of margin that will affect the election.
I called Trump's chances "toast" sometime around the Democrat convention, but he had actually pulled almost even before the well-planned "locker room talk" and "women from the past" reports. He's back to toast, barring some Brexit-level polling incompetence and hidden voter surge surprise.
Trump should have run in 1988 when he was contemplating running, which would have made him a competent politician by 2000. He has policy positions and outsider credentials to win the presidency, but he torpedoes himself with his amateurish foot-in-mouth disease. Now, he's too old to learn from his mistakes and run again. |
|
justintyme
Joined: 08 Jul 2012
Posts: 8407
Location: Northfield, MN
Back to top |
| Posted: 10/20/16 2:02 am ::: |
Reply |
|
| GlennMacGrady wrote: |
| Queenie wrote: |
| his gross misunderstanding of late-term/partial-birth abortions |
Just curious what you mean by this.
|
Well, for one, abortion after viability is already restricted in almost every state, except for dangers to the mother's health. The boogey man view of abortions the day before giving birth isn't real. Abortions after 21 weeks account for only 1.3% of all abortions and they are not done by "ripping it out of the womb". This isn't something that is done on a lark or is something people are cavalier about.
_________________
↑↑↓↓←→←→BA
Last edited by justintyme on 10/20/16 2:27 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
justintyme
Joined: 08 Jul 2012
Posts: 8407
Location: Northfield, MN
Back to top |
| Posted: 10/20/16 2:12 am ::: |
Reply |
|
| GlennMacGrady wrote: |
No one has to "concede" for an election to be decided. The Constitution and House of Representatives decide the final election results. Trump apparently hasn't "conceded" that he lost an Emmy contest, but the contents of his cerebrum on this issue is irrelevant and impotent. The Emmy voters decide the winner.
Much ado about nothing -- unless the election is so close as to be legally contestable. |
The problem comes from convincing his supporters that it was rigged. This can undermine the belief in the legitimacy of the rightfully elected president. And in a worse case scenario, could lead to protests and potentially even violence. The concession is seen as formally accepting the legitimacy of the vote and having their supporters move on. If the candidate continues to suggest that it was rigged, a not insignificant portion of the population is going to believe them, thus undermining the fabric of our democracy.
_________________
↑↑↓↓←→←→BA
|
|
tfan
Joined: 31 May 2010
Posts: 9630
Back to top |
| Posted: 10/20/16 3:40 am ::: |
Reply |
|
| I don't understand why the legality of abortion is left up to 9 people. I think it should be a state issue as I don't see any need for it to be a national policy. But given that we want it national, let Congress take care of it via legislation.
|
|
justintyme
Joined: 08 Jul 2012
Posts: 8407
Location: Northfield, MN
Back to top |
| Posted: 10/20/16 4:03 am ::: |
Reply |
|
| tfan wrote: |
| I don't understand why the legality of abortion is left up to 9 people. I think it should be a state issue as I don't see any need for it to be a national policy. But given that we want it national, let Congress take care of it via legislation. |
Because it is a constitutional right. That means that neither congress nor the states may pass a law to make it illegal.
The 9 people are there to safeguard us from laws that infringe upon our rights. Why should a state be allowed to tell a woman what she can or cannot do within her own body, no matter what laws they pass? Telling a woman that she must bring a fetus to term and go through the painful process of giving birth is a violation of her very being and should not be up to the government to decide. That is the essence of tyranny.
You might as well ask why 9 people get to determine the legality of segregation. Why can't it just be a state issue?
_________________
↑↑↓↓←→←→BA
|
|
tfan
Joined: 31 May 2010
Posts: 9630
Back to top |
| Posted: 10/20/16 5:48 am ::: |
Reply |
|
| justintyme wrote: |
| tfan wrote: |
| I don't understand why the legality of abortion is left up to 9 people. I think it should be a state issue as I don't see any need for it to be a national policy. But given that we want it national, let Congress take care of it via legislation. |
Because it is a constitutional right. |
I think of it as 7 of 9 judges said it was a constitutional right. Not mentioned in the constitution, so then it just hangs on the opinion of 5 to 9 people thinking it applies.
| Quote: |
The 9 people are there to safeguard us from laws that infringe upon our rights. Why should a state be allowed to tell a woman what she can or cannot do within her own body, no matter what laws they pass? Telling a woman that she must bring a fetus to term and go through the painful process of giving birth is a violation of her very being and should not be up to the government to decide. That is the essence of tyranny. |
OK, good to know. I had thought of the Supreme Court as just a check on lower court decisions.
Reducing a fetus to "part of her body", equivalent to an appendix or kidney, is an opinion and why it is such a controversial issue. If you remove a "part of your body" you are usually either diminished in some way or dead unless you get a replacement from a recently deceased person.
| Quote: |
You might as well ask why 9 people get to determine the legality of segregation. Why can't it just be a state issue? |
Segregation highlights my view of Supreme Court decisions as just the opinion of a majority of 9 people: "The legitimacy of laws requiring segregation of blacks was upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court in the 1896 case of Plessy v. Ferguson, 163 U.S. 537."
How do you square your ardent support of the Supreme Court which I think implies a support of the rule of law, with your ardent support of disregard for immigration law?
Last edited by tfan on 10/20/16 8:39 am; edited 4 times in total |
|
tfan
Joined: 31 May 2010
Posts: 9630
Back to top |
| Posted: 10/20/16 6:06 am ::: |
Reply |
|
I thought that Clinton was not her normal bright eyed and bushy tailed self last night, and seemed less comfortable than she did at previous debates. Someone said that she had added the possibility that Trump would go way of the rails or further into the gutter to her debate preparation and maybe that got to her. Or maybe she was concerned about Wikileaks talk.
Trump showed again that he could benefit from the rehearsal that Clinton and other candidates typically do before a debate. It would have been more interesting if Trump still had some kind of chance, but since the "hot mike" tape and subsequent confirmations, the pundits are reduced to talking about card games and "royal flushes that are rare, but possible" with regard to Trump's chances.
|
|
pilight
Joined: 23 Sep 2004
Posts: 66926
Location: Where the action is
Back to top |
| Posted: 10/20/16 7:19 am ::: |
Reply |
|
| The "I'll keep you in suspense" thing is setting up the same kind of thing he did with the birther question. He'll get the press there and spend an hour hyping whatever new venture he has then give a one sentence answer "Hillary Clinton is the president elect" at the end.
_________________
I'm a lonely frog
I ain't got a home
|
|
mercfan3
Joined: 23 Nov 2004
Posts: 19763
Back to top |
|
pilight
Joined: 23 Sep 2004
Posts: 66926
Location: Where the action is
Back to top |
| Posted: 10/20/16 8:15 am ::: |
Reply |
|
| justintyme wrote: |
| tfan wrote: |
| I don't understand why the legality of abortion is left up to 9 people. I think it should be a state issue as I don't see any need for it to be a national policy. But given that we want it national, let Congress take care of it via legislation. |
Because it is a constitutional right. That means that neither congress nor the states may pass a law to make it illegal. |
Hillary Clinton would undoubtedly disagree, as evidenced by her quotes on District of Columbia v. Heller.
_________________
I'm a lonely frog
I ain't got a home
|
|
cthskzfn
Joined: 21 Nov 2004
Posts: 12851
Location: In a world where a PSYCHOpath like Trump isn't potus.
Back to top |
| Posted: 10/20/16 8:54 am ::: |
Reply |
|
Did Gore spend a year talking about rigged polls, media, and voting?
I believe Gore initially sent a concession message to Bush, but later retracted when the FL vote tightened. It later went to automatic recount.
He then conceded after the SC decision.
Doesn't everyone know that when all the FL votes were actually counted later, more were cast for Gore?
http://www.authentichistory.com/1993-2000/3-2000election/3-dispute/
_________________
Silly, stupid white people might be waking up.
|
|
mercfan3
Joined: 23 Nov 2004
Posts: 19763
Back to top |
| Posted: 10/20/16 9:00 am ::: |
Reply |
|
| pilight wrote: |
| justintyme wrote: |
| tfan wrote: |
| I don't understand why the legality of abortion is left up to 9 people. I think it should be a state issue as I don't see any need for it to be a national policy. But given that we want it national, let Congress take care of it via legislation. |
Because it is a constitutional right. That means that neither congress nor the states may pass a law to make it illegal. |
Hillary Clinton would undoubtedly disagree, as evidenced by her quotes on District of Columbia v. Heller. |
False equivalence there.
_________________
“Anyone point out that a Donald Trump anagram is ‘Lord Dampnut’”- Colin Mochrie
|
|
Luuuc
#NATC
Joined: 10 Feb 2005
Posts: 21930
Back to top |
| Posted: 10/22/16 2:33 am ::: |
Reply |
|
| <iframe width="560" height="315" src="//sendvid.com/embed/133qqu5p" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
_________________
Thanks for calling. I wait all night for calls like these.
|
|
|
|
