The Third & Final US Presidential Debate

vetinari · 20-10-2016 04:51AM

Disastrous debate from Trump.
I didn't think he could do any worse than the first debate.
Saying he wouldn't 100% accept the outcome of the election was outrageous.
That's going to be the headline maker for the next few days.

Realt Dearg Sec · 20-10-2016 04:55AM

Elliott S wrote: »

Yer wan from Breitbart on the Channel 4 coverage was struggling too and distanced herself from his election results and rigging comments.

Not all that eloquent but interesting!

He's ploughing an extremely lonely furrow on the election rigging line. His very popular daughter, his politically savvy running mate, his campaign manager, have all tried to play down what he's saying and distances themselves from it. And every time they try to "clarify" it and make him seem less nuts, he undermines them by doubling down, never more clearly than tonight. And every time they're left trying to spin it into something workable. But he's determined to down this road.

It makes no sense either way to me. Firstly, it's absolutely nutty. Second, is going to scare people who think it shows disdain for democracy, and lastly, it begs the question, why should his supporters bother their arse voting anyway?

Can't wait to see mike pence jump ship post election, his tell all as he gears up for his own tilt in four years will be interesting.

Duck Soup · 20-10-2016 04:56AM

Another snap poll, this time from CNN:

20-10-2016 06:18AM

super_furry wrote: »

Hang on? Did he just claim that Obama and Hilary paid people to start riots at Trump rallies?

Overheal wrote: »

Digging himself that hole with that rally violence accusation.

Curious.. Have you seen the evidence and decided to not believe it or have you not seen the evidence?

Carrie Palmer · 20-10-2016 06:41AM

Hillary is not just giving him a thrash, she is just surging ahead of Trump, What a blow for Trump at the such a juncture of presidential campaign

Elliott S · 20-10-2016 08:36AM

Deleted User wrote: »

Curious.. Have you seen the evidence and decided to not believe it or have you not seen the evidence?

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2016/oct/20/trump-says-clinton-and-obama-caused-violence-his-r/

Read the full article.

Wanderer78 · 20-10-2016 08:43AM

Well crock of ****e or what?

Moo Moo Land · 20-10-2016 09:18AM

Did Trump really say he would not accept the election result?

Nody · 20-10-2016 09:23AM

Moo Moo Land wrote: »

Did Trump really say he would not accept the election result?

To everyone else yes; in Trump world he said he'd wait and see to be able to claim electorate fraud which he's been banging on about for the last year as the excuse why he's not going to win (even though both Pierce and his daughter claimed he'd accept it before the debate he refused to do so during the debate).

nomadchocolate · 20-10-2016 09:28AM

Elliott S wrote: »

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2016/oct/20/trump-says-clinton-and-obama-caused-violence-his-r/

Read the full article.

Not a Trump supporter but that article is so unconvincing. The 2 reasons they list as to be skeptical about the videos is that 1: it's edited and 2: the investigators used leading questions...which clearly wasn't the case.

The wikileaks emails and these videos back up that there was some form of collusion in my opinion.

Whether Hillary was aware, or if it was organised by her lieutenants who knows.

CMOTDibbler · 20-10-2016 09:47AM

Overheal wrote: »

Trevor Noah is on fire tonight. I'll try to post the clip when I find one.

Here you go:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=of7g9u54WsI

Eoin247 · 20-10-2016 10:15AM

Trump improved on his two previous debates overall, and it could have possibly been considered a good performance from him if it wasn't for that disastrous line about not accepting the election results. Seriously, what was he thinking?

PropJoe10 · 20-10-2016 10:51AM

Moo Moo Land wrote: »

Did Trump really say he would not accept the election result?

Said he'd wait and see. This man is a dangerous bollix. He's actually threatening democracy at this stage.

20-10-2016 11:14AM

Elliott S wrote: »

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2016/oct/20/trump-says-clinton-and-obama-caused-violence-his-r/

Read the full article.

It's an astonishing display of double standards so believe what you want but be aware that not everyone who watches those Veritas videos does the mental gymnastics required to dismiss them.

CMOTDibbler · 20-10-2016 11:32AM

Deleted User wrote: »

It's an astonishing display of double standards so believe what you want but be aware that not everyone who watches those Veritas videos does the mental gymnastics required to dismiss them.

I don't dismiss them. I just don't take at face value what people are saying they prove. For example, saying that these provocateurs are causing violence is ignoring the fact that they are not being violent themselves. They are winding up Trump supporters, pretty easily it seems.

It's not pretty. But having a rentacrowd to wind up the opposition at their rallies is something that's been going on in politics everywhere for decades. Obama got booed and interrupted six or seven times during a speech last week by Trump supporters.

nomadchocolate · 20-10-2016 11:39AM

CMOTDibbler wrote: »

I don't dismiss them. I just don't take at face value what people are saying they prove. For example, saying that these provocateurs are causing violence is ignoring the fact that they are not being violent themselves. They are winding up Trump supporters, pretty easily it seems.

It's not pretty. But having a rentacrowd to wind up the opposition at their rallies is something that's been going on in politics everywhere for decades. Obama got booed and interrupted six or seven times during a speech last week by Trump supporters.

I think this is a really weak form of defence. It's wrong and should not be happening. The videos combined with the e-mails showed a level of coordination that is more sinister than a few individual Trump supporters taking it upon themselves to protest.

Personally I don't think Wikileaks has been much of a revelation apart from what is mentioned above.

CMOTDibbler · 20-10-2016 11:46AM

nomadchocolate wrote: »

I think this is a really weak form of defence. It's wrong and should not be happening. The videos combined with the e-mails showed a level of coordination that is more sinister than a few individual Trump supporters taking it upon themselves to protest.

Personally I don't think Wikileaks has been much of a revelation apart from what is mentioned above.

There's no way of stopping it. As long as rallies are public events, there will always be a way of disrupting them and protesting at them.

I'm not sure it's even right to try. After all, freedom of speech is in the US constitution and pretty much every other democracy in the world. If you want to turn up to a Clinton or Trump rally and shout opposition slogans (whether organised or not), that's your right.

20-10-2016 11:57AM

CMOTDibbler wrote: »

I don't dismiss them. I just don't take at face value what people are saying they prove. For example, saying that these provocateurs are causing violence is ignoring the fact that they are not being violent themselves. They are winding up Trump supporters, pretty easily it seems.

It's not pretty. But having a rentacrowd to wind up the opposition at their rallies is something that's been going on in politics everywhere for decades. Obama got booed and interrupted six or seven times during a speech last week by Trump supporters.

Trump said they incited violence which is what you've just described. But he shouldn't say it or something?

It's an eye-opening year in the media. For the first time ever, the would-be conspiracy theorists have proof for pretty much everything and it's just amazing to watch the media gloss over it and tell blatant lies.

Why is that when there was no evidence, the defense was "nope, wasn't there" but when there is evidence, it changes to "nothing to see here, it's always been like that"..

Pro Hoc Vice · 20-10-2016 12:07PM

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Trump said they incited violence which is what you've just described. But he shouldn't say it or something?

It's an eye-opening year in the media. For the first time ever, the would-be conspiracy theorists have proof for pretty much everything and it's just amazing to watch the media gloss over it and tell blatant lies.

Why is that when there was no evidence, the defense was "nope, wasn't there" but when there is evidence, it changes to "nothing to see here, it's always been like that"..

What did Clinton surporters do to incite violence?

jcsoulinger · 20-10-2016 12:10PM

I find it hilarious that Trump can accuse Hillary of inciting violence, when it's not completely clear if she had anything to do with it, Yet he stands in front of a mob of his supporters and tells them he would like to see some one punch that guy, and not to worry about a law suit as he will take care of it, he is completely a moral.

Billy86 · 20-10-2016 12:24PM

jcsoulinger wrote: »

I find it hilarious that Trump can accuse Hillary of inciting violence, when it's not completely clear if she had anything to do with it, Yet he stands in front of a mob of his supporters and tells them he would like to see some one punch that guy, and not to worry about a law suit as he will take care of it, he is completely a moral.

That's the thing about almost all still lsupporting Trump - they flat out don't subscribe to reality, and just get more and more angry as it continues on without them. It's a big reason shy November 9th could be a very violent day in the US, which Trumps comments from last night will only make worse.

jcsoulinger · 20-10-2016 12:25PM

Pro Hoc Vice wrote: »

What did Clinton surporters do to incite violence?

Apparently they wore t-shirts, their barbarism knows no bounds.

Vital Transformation · 20-10-2016 12:26PM

PropJoe10 wrote: »

Said he'd wait and see. This man is a dangerous bollix. He's actually threatening democracy at this stage.

It's strange because he was asked would he accept the result by a journalist after one of the previous debates, I think it was on CNN as he was leaving the venue. He responded saying he would absolutely accept the outcome.

Pro Hoc Vice · 20-10-2016 12:35PM

jcsoulinger wrote: »

Apparently they wore t-shirts, their barbarism knows no bounds.

You mean they think the first amendment applies to them, how very dare they.

jcsoulinger · 20-10-2016 12:36PM

Billy86 wrote: »

That's the thing about almost all still lsupporting Trump - they flat out don't subscribe to reality, and just get more and more angry as it continues on without them. It's a big reason shy November 9th could be a very violent day in the US, which Trumps comments from last night will only make worse.

Ya he really needs to nip it the butt at this stage before things escalate.

The most annoying thing about the debate that they both are guilty of but Trump more so, Is they don't answer the question they are asked the mods need to be tougher on them and push them for a straight answer, I realise it's easier said than done. Trump is sounding like a broken record every debate had the same spiel, hes so negative loves talking about how supposedly bad things are but not getting much beyond "we are going to make America great again" when it comes to fixing it.

CMOTDibbler · 20-10-2016 12:36PM

Deleted User wrote: »

Trump said they incited violence which is what you've just described. But he shouldn't say it or something?

Did I actually ever say that?

Inciting violence by wearing tee shirts with slogans printed on them is a huge stretch in the meaning of the phrase. Unless there's been a new definition that I'm not aware of, it used to mean actually telling people to commit violence. Which Trump has done.

But while trying to point out the mote in my eye, you're studiously ignoring the plank in yours.

Billy86 · 20-10-2016 12:55PM

Vital Transformation wrote: »

It's strange because he was asked would he accept the result by a journalist after one of the previous debates, I think it was on CNN as he was leaving the venue. He responded saying he would absolutely accept the outcome.

Trump being a lying, dishonest hypocrite who will go entirely back on his word on absolutely anything is hardly even the least bit surprising at this stage, to be fair.

alastair · 20-10-2016 01:03PM

Deleted User wrote: »

Trump said they incited violence which is what you've just described. But he shouldn't say it or something?

Here's what Trump actually alleged:

"If you look at what came out today on the clips," he said, "I was wondering what happened with my rally in Chicago and other rallies where we had such violence. She’s the one, and Obama, that caused the violence. They hired people, they paid them $1,500, and they’re on tape saying, be violent, cause fights, do bad things."

Is there anything to implicate Obama or Hillary in causing violence? Nope.
Did pro Democrat activists hire people to protest at Trump rallies? Yep.
Did pro Democrat activists pay people $1,500 to do so? Not that I've seen.
Is Obama or Hillary (or anyone for that matter) on tape saying 'be violent'? Nope.
Is Obama or Hillary (or anyone for that matter) on tape saying 'Cause fights'? Nope.
Is Obama or Hillary (or anyone for that matter) on tape saying 'Do bad things'? Nope.

Cheerful Spring · 20-10-2016 01:24PM

CNN and media outlets will say a rigged election is nonsense, but only a few months ago the very same media outlets were praising Hilary and saying Bernie was not electable. They pushed the viewing audience to believe Hilary was the only electable one here! Media are idiots the leaked emails even show the democratic party from the get go decided Bernie will not win and they wanted him out of the way, thats rigged election you idiots.

CMOTDibbler · 20-10-2016 01:24PM

Vital Transformation wrote: »

It's strange because he was asked would he accept the result by a journalist after one of the previous debates, I think it was on CNN as he was leaving the venue. He responded saying he would absolutely accept the outcome.

He was doing pretty well in the polls coming up to the first debate. His chances started to slide after that, but at the time 538 had him with a 45% chance of winning the election.

By the same yardstick he now has a 13% chance of winning.

The Third & Final US Presidential Debate

Comments