Re: 26th September - 1st Presidential Debate
« Reply #40 on: September 27, 2016, 05:51:51 PM »
The most conspicuous aspect was Trump's blue tie, and Hillary's red dress; in the last debate which will take place on October 19, Trump will wear his usual red tie.

Both Trump and Clinton put on a show which was scripted well beforehand.

Trump is saying the right things, the concepts and ideas which a certain segment of the population has been waiting for a very long time for someone to address them.

*

Offline Rushy

  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 8569
    • View Profile
Re: 26th September - 1st Presidential Debate
« Reply #41 on: September 27, 2016, 05:53:47 PM »
  • Continuing to defend stop and frisk after being told again and again it's unconstitutional. Not just for racial bias, but because it is anti-fourth amendment and gives police power to search you without warrant or cause. It is ironic that Trump, the seemingly pro-second amendment candidate, is suggesting illegal searches to take away guns.
Stop-and-frisk was never ruled unconstitutional, and in fact Trump showed us that he understands the court system well enough to point out why. The SCOTUS ruled that stop-and-frisk is constitutional in Terry v Ohio. What Lester Holt was referencing was a single circuit court judge trying to rule otherwise, which Trump is correct that an appeal would have easily overturned that judge's decision.

  • Saying that buying up companies was "called business" and that not paying taxes was "smart" is going to become an attack ad by the end of the week. Might be true, but the American voter is not going to take kindly to a candidate they feel is not paying their "fair share", and it's going to get contrasted with Trump's criticism of NATO members not paying their fair share.
The difference being that Trump is simply paying what is legally obligated and NATO is not. Anyone who pays more federal taxes than they are legally obligated to do is simply throwing money away. It's not like the federal government is very good at spending it anyway.

  • Telling people to call Sean Hannity about Trump's position on the Iraq War. What even? That isn't going to help in the debate. You need an answer to these questions!
Call Sean Hannity, idiot.

  • Loudly bragging about his temperament.
IT'S THE BEST!

*

Offline Fortuna

  • *
  • Posts: 2979
    • View Profile
Re: 26th September - 1st Presidential Debate
« Reply #42 on: September 27, 2016, 06:06:28 PM »
Did anyone notice how Hillary got two big assists from Lester Holt? He asked Trump about his taxes and also asked him the birther question. I thought the moderators are supposed to ask the exact same questions of both candidates?

*

Online Lord Dave

  • *
  • Posts: 7653
  • Grumpy old man.
    • View Profile
Re: 26th September - 1st Presidential Debate
« Reply #43 on: September 27, 2016, 06:13:00 PM »
Did anyone notice how Hillary got two big assists from Lester Holt? He asked Trump about his taxes and also asked him the birther question. I thought the moderators are supposed to ask the exact same questions of both candidates?

I haven't seen the whole thing but if so I will say this...

Donald Trump put a survey of things he wanted to talk about at the debate.  I'm guessing that it was put to Holt to talk about it because it was on the survey.
If you are going to DebOOonK an expert then you have to at least provide a source with credentials of equal or greater relevance. Even then, it merely shows that some experts disagree with each other.

*

Online Lord Dave

  • *
  • Posts: 7653
  • Grumpy old man.
    • View Profile
Re: 26th September - 1st Presidential Debate
« Reply #44 on: September 27, 2016, 06:16:14 PM »
...

Just heard on the debate: Donald Trump claimed Hillary has been fighting ISIS her entire adult life.

Is... is that ... what?
If you are going to DebOOonK an expert then you have to at least provide a source with credentials of equal or greater relevance. Even then, it merely shows that some experts disagree with each other.

*

Offline Fortuna

  • *
  • Posts: 2979
    • View Profile
Re: 26th September - 1st Presidential Debate
« Reply #45 on: September 27, 2016, 06:27:22 PM »
...

Just heard on the debate: Donald Trump claimed Hillary has been fighting ISIS her entire adult life.

Is... is that ... what?

That must be an allusion to how she has been in the political game since the 1970s.

*

Online Lord Dave

  • *
  • Posts: 7653
  • Grumpy old man.
    • View Profile
Re: 26th September - 1st Presidential Debate
« Reply #46 on: September 27, 2016, 06:32:25 PM »
Trump just said, almost literally "I screwed people because it was legal to"
If you are going to DebOOonK an expert then you have to at least provide a source with credentials of equal or greater relevance. Even then, it merely shows that some experts disagree with each other.

*

Offline Fortuna

  • *
  • Posts: 2979
    • View Profile
Re: 26th September - 1st Presidential Debate
« Reply #47 on: September 27, 2016, 06:39:46 PM »
Trump just said, almost literally "I screwed people because it was legal to"

Pretty much. Meanwhile, Hillary has done the same, or worse, but she'd never admit it.

*

Offline Pongo

  • Most Educated Flat-Earther
  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 754
    • View Profile
Re: 26th September - 1st Presidential Debate
« Reply #48 on: September 27, 2016, 06:41:36 PM »
Trump just said, almost literally "I screwed people because it was legal to"

I don't follow. How did he screw people because it was legal?

Re: 26th September - 1st Presidential Debate
« Reply #49 on: September 27, 2016, 06:47:59 PM »
Stop-and-frisk was never ruled unconstitutional

[...]

What Lester Holt was referencing was a single circuit court judge trying to rule otherwise,

So yes, it was ruled unconstitutional by a US district court judge. Plus in Terry v. Ohio, a lot of the decision relied upon the stop being justified due to the cop's reasonable suspicion a crime was taking place. If there is no reasonable suspicion, the stop would constitute an illegal search, and the ruling on New York's stop and frisk program claimed these stops were unreasonable. In any case, it's much less clear cut than Trump is leading us to believe.

The difference being that Trump is simply paying what is legally obligated and NATO is not.

NATO members are not legally required to pay 2% GDP either. It is a guideline. Likewise, if you're going to run for president, it's probably best not to use shady loopholes to pay the least amount of tax possible.
« Last Edit: September 27, 2016, 06:57:06 PM by trekky0623 »

*

Online Lord Dave

  • *
  • Posts: 7653
  • Grumpy old man.
    • View Profile
Re: 26th September - 1st Presidential Debate
« Reply #50 on: September 27, 2016, 07:02:15 PM »
Trump just said, almost literally "I screwed people because it was legal to"

I don't follow. How did he screw people because it was legal?

The dialog was about people who were "stiffed" or underpaid by Donald Trump.  Especially when he filed Bankruptcy (4 times).  He then said that he used the laws available to him to his advantage and that's smart.  And when a specific example was used about an architect, he said "well, maybe I wasn't happy with his work."

Simply put, he said that he doesn't pay taxes or files for bankruptcy when it is both legal and beneficial to himself.  He had no sympathy for those who are not benefited by it.
If you are going to DebOOonK an expert then you have to at least provide a source with credentials of equal or greater relevance. Even then, it merely shows that some experts disagree with each other.

*

Offline Rushy

  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 8569
    • View Profile
Re: 26th September - 1st Presidential Debate
« Reply #51 on: September 27, 2016, 07:20:39 PM »
So yes, it was ruled unconstitutional by a US district court judge. Plus in Terry v. Ohio, a lot of the decision relied upon the stop being justified due to the cop's reasonable suspicion a crime was taking place. If there is no reasonable suspicion, the stop would constitute an illegal search, and the ruling on New York's stop and frisk program claimed these stops were unreasonable. In any case, it's much less clear cut than Trump is leading us to believe.

A district court judge doesn't have the authority to override prior SCOTUS decisions. It was a completely nonsensical "fact check" and the moderator should have stayed out of it.

NATO members are not legally required to pay 2% GDP either. It is a guideline. Likewise, if you're going to run for president, it's probably best not to use shady loopholes to pay the least amount of tax possible.

"shady loopholes"? If we simplified tax code in the method that Trump has suggested, then maybe we wouldn't need to be calling legal maneuvers shady loopholes. Honestly, without the deductions available, our economy would be crippled. The effective tax rate of a corporation in the US that doesn't use any shady loopholes is the highest on the planet.

George

Re: 26th September - 1st Presidential Debate
« Reply #52 on: September 27, 2016, 07:26:30 PM »
  • Continuing to defend stop and frisk after being told again and again it's unconstitutional. Not just for racial bias, but because it is anti-fourth amendment and gives police power to search you without warrant or cause. It is ironic that Trump, the seemingly pro-second amendment candidate, is suggesting illegal searches to take away guns.

Stop-and-frisk was never ruled unconstitutional, and in fact Trump showed us that he understands the court system well enough to point out why. The SCOTUS ruled that stop-and-frisk is constitutional in Terry v Ohio. What Lester Holt was referencing was a single circuit court judge trying to rule otherwise, which Trump is correct that an appeal would have easily overturned that judge's decision.

Neither of you are quite right.  The Terry decision held that a stop-and-frisk based on reasonable suspicion doesn't violate the Fourth Amendment rights of the suspect.  The case they were talking about, Floyd v. City of New York, was about equal protection, not the Fourth Amendment, and it was about stop-and-frisk as practiced by the NYPD specifically, not the practice as a general concept.  Would the city have won their appeal if they had kept at it, who knows, but they would have had to rely on a lot more than just the Terry decision.  It is nice to see that you're acknowledging the ruling was made, though.  It's more than I can say for Trump, who denied it and then delivered the irrelevant aside of "It went before a judge, who was a very against-police judge. It was taken away from her," as if to imply that she was kicked off the case instead of ruling on it.

Also, it was a district court judge, not a circuit court judge.  Circuit courts are the ones that hear appeals.

Re: 26th September - 1st Presidential Debate
« Reply #53 on: September 27, 2016, 07:40:49 PM »
"shady loopholes"? If we simplified tax code in the method that Trump has suggested, then maybe we wouldn't need to be calling legal maneuvers shady loopholes.

Literally every candidate says they will simplify the tax code and none of them do.

*

Offline Rushy

  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 8569
    • View Profile
Re: 26th September - 1st Presidential Debate
« Reply #54 on: September 27, 2016, 07:45:52 PM »
"shady loopholes"? If we simplified tax code in the method that Trump has suggested, then maybe we wouldn't need to be calling legal maneuvers shady loopholes.

Literally every candidate says they will simplify the tax code and none of them do.

Status quo ahoy!

*

Offline Luke 22:35-38

  • *
  • Posts: 382
  • The earth is round. Prove I'm wrong.
    • View Profile
Re: 26th September - 1st Presidential Debate
« Reply #55 on: September 27, 2016, 10:03:40 PM »
Strong start by Hillary, referencing the gender wage gap because why the fuck not

I only listened to part of the debate but one of the comments she made was condemning trump for thinking women should only be paid equal to men if they do as much work as men. I don't get it. Shouldn't equal work equals equal pay? Is she saying women should be paid the same regardless on how much work they do? If so then she's really not for equal pay. She's for superior pay for women.
Isaiah 40:22 "It is he that sitteth upon the CIRCLE of the earth"

Scripture, science, facts, stats, and logic is how I argue

Evolutionism is a religion. Can dumb luck create a smart brain?

Please PM me to explain sunsets.

*

Online Lord Dave

  • *
  • Posts: 7653
  • Grumpy old man.
    • View Profile
Re: 26th September - 1st Presidential Debate
« Reply #56 on: September 27, 2016, 10:08:10 PM »
"shady loopholes"? If we simplified tax code in the method that Trump has suggested, then maybe we wouldn't need to be calling legal maneuvers shady loopholes.

Literally every candidate says they will simplify the tax code and none of them do.

Status quo ahoy!
If we simplify the tax code, millions of Americans and businesses would not get a check from the IRS.  Also, thousands of accountants and tax prep experts would be out of work. 

Just think: your average joe would rather have a check in the mail in April than pay slightly less in taxes a week over a year's time.  Big sum is better than lots of tiny ones, even if the money is identical.
« Last Edit: September 28, 2016, 05:31:48 AM by Lord Dave »
If you are going to DebOOonK an expert then you have to at least provide a source with credentials of equal or greater relevance. Even then, it merely shows that some experts disagree with each other.

George

Re: 26th September - 1st Presidential Debate
« Reply #57 on: September 28, 2016, 12:24:15 AM »
Birtherism, therefore racism!!!

Do you really think that the birther movement wasn't racist to the core?  Really?

Re: 26th September - 1st Presidential Debate
« Reply #58 on: September 28, 2016, 03:14:00 AM »
Strong start by Hillary, referencing the gender wage gap because why the fuck not

I only listened to part of the debate but one of the comments she made was condemning trump for thinking women should only be paid equal to men if they do as much work as men. I don't get it. Shouldn't equal work equals equal pay? Is she saying women should be paid the same regardless on how much work they do? If so then she's really not for equal pay. She's for superior pay for women.

Smart Trump would have called her out by saying something like "Are you saying women don't do as good a job as men?" But Trump was not smart Trump that night.

*

Offline rooster

  • *
  • Posts: 4139
    • View Profile
Re: 26th September - 1st Presidential Debate
« Reply #59 on: September 28, 2016, 03:52:37 PM »
Trump is a super sassy, teenage, drama queen.

Clinton was all practice and script.

Both were pretty shit, but I think the practiced liar is more on par with being a president.