Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

The Third & Final US Presidential Debate

1…911131415

Comments

  • #302
    Amalgam
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,026 ✭✭✭Amalgam


    Not watched the other two, but this one would have you worried, clucking bell.. He's as mad as a box of frogs.

    How did we get here..

    Matt Furie's (original creator of the 'Pepe' meme) contribution to thenib.

    https://thenib.com/pepe-the-frog-to-sleep-perchance-to-meme


  • #303
    Overheal
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 86,725 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    Cheerful Spring wrote: »
    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.

    If it was a question of character of course Bernie could win. But could his democratic socialist platform win a general election? Even I'm skeptical and I voted for him.


  • #304
    Amerika
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,175 ✭✭✭Amerika


    Moo Moo Land wrote: »
    Did Trump really say he would not accept the election result?
    No, he said he will look at it. I understand the media interprets this as a call from Trump for armed insurrection to forcibly declare him king, but it simply isn’t true. With all the reports coming out, which the mainstream media chooses to ignore for the most part, of voter fraud and rigging of the system perpetuated by democrats, it makes sense to make sure of the legitimacy of the election before conceding.

    Does anyone else find it ironic that the media and democrats are appalled by Trumps refusal to roll over and die by the instant stated election results when they and the media to this day proclaim and write articles of how the 2000 election was stolen, and Al Gore was right to refuse to accept the results. Or is it the same old, same old, history starts today?


  • #305
    StringerBell
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,342 ✭✭✭✭StringerBell


    You want to talk about an election being stolen look at the 2000 US Presidential election, I don't think the Democrats are in a position where they are going to need to steal this one tbh. Trump will not get close to her, and that is quite the achievement given how poor she is.

    "People say ‘go with the flow’ but do you know what goes with the flow? Dead fish."



  • #306
    StringerBell
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,342 ✭✭✭✭StringerBell


    Amerika wrote: »
    No, he said he will look at it. I understand the media interprets this as a call from Trump for armed insurrection to forcibly declare him king, but it simply isn’t true. With all the reports coming out, which the mainstream media chooses to ignore for the most part, of voter fraud and rigging of the system perpetuated by democrats, it makes sense to make sure of the legitimacy of the election before conceding.

    Does anyone else find it ironic that the media and democrats are appalled by Trumps refusal to roll over and die by the instant stated election results when they and the media to this day proclaim and write articles of how the 2000 election was stolen, and Al Gore was right to refuse to accept the results. Or is it the same old, same old, history starts today?


    The context of the question is that the change of power in America is a peaceful thing and thats one of the things that makes the country great and all that, will he go on record now and say he is prepared to accept the election result regardless of what it is. (This question is brought up because of the genuine fear of what is going to happen in terms of public disorder from the KKK and his other supporters when he loses, and loses badly)

    He won't commit to that, he will "keep them in suspense" what kind of **** is that like? He will deem the election a fair one if he wins I suppose, funny that.

    "People say ‘go with the flow’ but do you know what goes with the flow? Dead fish."



  • Advertisement
  • #307
    alastair
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,309 ✭✭✭✭alastair


    Cheerful Spring wrote: »
    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.

    No it's not.

    Bernie wasn't an electable candidate. That's just the harsh reality of it. I like a lot of his positions, and wish that there was greater electoral support for them in the US, but there just isn't. Hillary's platform, which is undoubtedly tepid stuff in the main, only garners her enough support to fend off a historically poor candidate, given the conservative bias of much of the electorate there. The DNC's call on who was the better candidate to win was correct.

    The DNC didn't rigg any aspect of the nomination process. They certainly had a favoured candidate, and they tried to help her out at the expense of Bernie (and even then, it's hard to determine what they actually followed through on), but they don't actually get to control the vote, so just as the GOP probably didn't want Trump coming out on top of their nomination, they're still beholden to the choices that the actual members make.


  • #308
    nomadchocolate
    Closed Accounts Posts: 150 ✭✭nomadchocolate


    Amerika wrote: »
    No, he said he will look at it. I understand the media interprets this as a call from Trump for armed insurrection to forcibly declare him king, but it simply isn’t true. With all the reports coming out, which the mainstream media chooses to ignore for the most part, of voter fraud and rigging of the system perpetuated by democrats, it makes sense to make sure of the legitimacy of the election before conceding.

    Does anyone else find it ironic that the media and democrats are appalled by Trumps refusal to roll over and die by the instant stated election results when they and the media to this day proclaim and write articles of how the 2000 election was stolen, and Al Gore was right to refuse to accept the results. Or is it the same old, same old, history starts today?

    A big problem is that democrats and liberals in general position themselves as a moral authority so ignore any contradictions and hypocrisies. Clinton has the media in her pocket and is still struggling


  • #309
    alastair
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,309 ✭✭✭✭alastair


    Amerika wrote: »
    No, he said he will look at it. I understand the media interprets this as a call from Trump for armed insurrection to forcibly declare him king, but it simply isn’t true. With all the reports coming out, which the mainstream media chooses to ignore for the most part, of voter fraud and rigging of the system perpetuated by democrats, it makes sense to make sure of the legitimacy of the election before conceding.

    Does anyone else find it ironic that the media and democrats are appalled by Trumps refusal to roll over and die by the instant stated election results when they and the media to this day proclaim and write articles of how the 2000 election was stolen, and Al Gore was right to refuse to accept the results. Or is it the same old, same old, history starts today?

    Trump was asked a simple question and could not bring himself to abide by the outcome of a democratic process.

    There's no evidence of any fraud or rigging in the election. Al Gore didn't accept the validity of the count (a count which neither side could have confidence in, as it turned out), he accepted the result once the count was confirmed and conceded. Not the same thing at all.


  • #310
    Amerika
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,175 ✭✭✭Amerika


    StringerBell wrote: »
    The context of the question is that the change of power in America is a peaceful thing and thats one of the things that makes the country great and all that, will he go on record now and say he is prepared to accept the election result regardless of what it is. (This question is brought up because of the genuine fear of what is going to happen in terms of public disorder from the KKK and his other supporters when he loses, and loses badly)

    He won't commit to that, he will "keep them in suspense" what kind of **** is that like? He will deem the election a fair one if he wins I suppose, funny that.
    If the election process isn't executed in a fair and honest manner, can you really admonish someone for not willing to submit to blind faith for that change of power in America?


  • #311
    jcsoulinger
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,785 ✭✭✭jcsoulinger


    I think Bernie would have blown Trump out of the the water had he got the nomination, It's a real pity he didn't in hindsight. Bernie may have struggled against a more traditional Republican candidate tho.


  • Advertisement
  • #312
    vetinari
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,043 ✭✭✭vetinari


    Referencing the 2000 election seems to be the only defense Trump surrogates have.
    Considering that Gore ACCEPTED the result after it was certified, it's a strange election to pick.
    There was a peaceful transfer of power after probably the closest election in US history.
    Trump 3 weeks before the election couldn't even say he'll accept the election result.
    The man is a danger to democracy.


  • #313
    StringerBell
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,342 ✭✭✭✭StringerBell


    Amerika wrote: »
    If the election process isn't executed in a fair and honest manner, can you really admonish someone for not willing to submit to blind faith for that change of power in America?

    What does that have to do with it? Where is your evidence that it isn't being processed in a fair and honest manner? What gives you reasonable grounds to decided this election is being rigged?

    It was a simple question, will you agree to accept the will of the majority. He did not agree. You would wonder why he is bothering running really

    "People say ‘go with the flow’ but do you know what goes with the flow? Dead fish."



  • #314
    StringerBell
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,342 ✭✭✭✭StringerBell


    vetinari wrote: »
    Referencing the 2000 election seems to be the only defense Trump surrogates have.
    Considering that Gore ACCEPTED the result after it was certified, it's a strange election to pick.
    There was a peaceful transfer of power after probably the closest election in US history.
    Trump 3 weeks before the election couldn't even say he'll accept the election result.
    The man is a danger to democracy.

    This.

    "People say ‘go with the flow’ but do you know what goes with the flow? Dead fish."



  • #315
    Overheal
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 86,725 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    He wouldn't even say he would accept the result if it was a certifiably fair process.


  • #316
    Amerika
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,175 ✭✭✭Amerika


    nomadchocolate wrote: »
    A big problem is that democrats and liberals in general position themselves as a moral authority so ignore any contradictions and hypocrisies. Clinton has the media in her pocket and is still struggling

    The O’Keefe’s Project Veritas video shows democratic operatives circumventing the law to cause violence, and how they funnel the money from the DNC to the groups that hope to cause violence at Trump rallies.

    “We have a clip deliverable that we have to deliver every day for our groups of clients who are involved in this project: AUFC; A4C, which is Alliance for Change; Alliance for Retired Americans, which is part of AFL-CIO — they’re one of our partners on the AUFC stuff … Depends on the issue. And then there’s the DNC, and the campaigns, and Priorities [USA]. Priorities is a big part of this, too. The campaigns and DNC cannot coordinate with Priorities, but I guaran-damn-tee you that the people who run the Super PACs all talk to each other, and we and a few other people are the hubs of that communication.

    We’re consultants, so we’re not the official entity. And so those conversations can be had between consultants who are working for different parts. That’s why there’s Bob, who’s the primary there, and I’m a sub to him. And I’m also a primary to AUFC separately, that’s why.

    It’s less of a Morse code than it is a text conversation that never ends. It’s like that. It’s kind of like an ongoing “Pony Express.” It’s not as official as it could be, but that’s because the law doesn’t allow it to be.”


    And the democrats claiming themselves as a moral authority would be laughable if it wasn’t so sad. The video shows what democrats really think of the election process and the slimy things they will do to win.

    Republicans are less adept at such tactics because they obey rules: “They have fewer guys willing to step out on the line for what they believe in. … There is a level of adherence to rules on the other side that only when you’re at the very highest level, do you get over.”


    http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/10/17/exclusive-okeefe-video-sting-exposes-bird-dogging-democrats-effort-to-incite-violence-at-trump-rallies/

    And notice how the mainstream media focuses on "The Russians" regarding the WikiLeak's emails, and almost nothing about digging into the truth and grave concerns of democratic vile tactics and lies to the people. When did the search for the truth die in American journalism?


  • #317
    jcsoulinger
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,785 ✭✭✭jcsoulinger


    vetinari wrote: »
    Referencing the 2000 election seems to be the only defense Trump surrogates have.
    Considering that Gore ACCEPTED the result after it was certified, it's a strange election to pick.
    There was a peaceful transfer of power after probably the closest election in US history.
    Trump 3 weeks before the election couldn't even say he'll accept the election result.
    The man is a danger to democracy.

    Gore for the greater good accepted the election result, I'm not sure Trump understands what for the greater good means.


  • #318
    Billy86
    Closed Accounts Posts: 23,495 ✭✭✭✭Billy86


    nomadchocolate wrote: »
    A big problem is that democrats and liberals in general position themselves as a moral authority so ignore any contradictions and hypocrisies. Clinton has the media in her pocket and is still struggling

    Define "struggling"?


  • #319
    Amerika
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,175 ✭✭✭Amerika


    jcsoulinger wrote: »
    Gore for the greater good accepted the election result, I'm not sure Trump understands what for the greater good means.
    How long after the election did the noble Al Gore finally end up doing this? If irregularities are apparent in the election, can't Trump have the same courtesy that was afforded the Gore?


  • #320
    Overheal
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 86,725 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    Amerika wrote: »
    How long after the election did the noble Al Gore finally end up doing this? If irregularities are apparent in the election, can't Trump have the same courtesy that was afforded the Gore?

    If the election came down to 500 votes because of hanging chads on the ballot sure. But when he loses this thing it's going to be by over 100 electoral votes so unless you think there's a conspiracy running in that many states and polling then he's out of his goddamn mind


  • #321
    Billy86
    Closed Accounts Posts: 23,495 ✭✭✭✭Billy86


    Amerika wrote: »
    The O’Keeffe...

    The exact point at which everyone would be best served to stop reading this post. You'll save yourself seeing this poster go on and try to use Trumps own campaign (breitbart) as a source of any integrity.

    Anyone confused should Google O'Keeffe and ask themselves if this is the kind of argument they should even be bothered engaging in.


  • Advertisement
  • #322
    Amerika
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,175 ✭✭✭Amerika


    alastair wrote: »
    Trump was asked a simple question and could not bring himself to abide by the outcome of a democratic process.

    There's no evidence of any fraud or rigging in the election. Al Gore didn't accept the validity of the count (a count which neither side could have confidence in, as it turned out), he accepted the result once the count was confirmed and conceded. Not the same thing at all.

    Sure there is evidence of fraud. It's even on tape.

    http://lawnewz.com/video/secret-video-shows-election-commissioner-saying-there-is-a-lot-of-voter-fraud-in-minority-areas/

    And there are more than 4 Million ineligible and dead voters on American voter rolls. I believe mostly democrats. Ask yourself, why do democrats fight so hard against removing them?

    http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2016/10/elections-expert-now-4-million-ineligible-dead-voters-american-voter-rolls-video/


  • #323
    Amerika
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,175 ✭✭✭Amerika


    Overheal wrote: »
    If the election came down to 500 votes because of hanging chads on the ballot sure. But when he loses this thing it's going to be by over 100 electoral votes so unless you think there's a conspiracy running in that many states and polling then he's out of his goddamn mind

    Are you saying it's quantity, not quality, of our election process that counts?


  • #324
    Overheal
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 86,725 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    Dead voters on the rolls is not equivalent to a dead vote.

    South Carolina State Law Enforcement Division investigated voter fraud after Gov Nikki Haley and her party spent an entire campaign cycle crying about zombie voters and election fraud as a cause to add voting restrictions.

    In conclusion, they couldn't find a single vote cast by a dead person. Any errors that were found in the voting were determined "non malicious"

    http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/3566194


  • #325
    Overheal
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 86,725 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    Amerika wrote: »
    Are you saying it's quantity, not quality, of our election process that counts?

    Oh get off that horse. So if Trump miraculously won the general election in a landslide, if there was a single case of fraud we should throw out the whole result? You're funny!


  • #326
    Enzokk
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,988 ✭✭✭Enzokk


    Amerika wrote: »
    No, he said he will look at it. I understand the media interprets this as a call from Trump for armed insurrection to forcibly declare him king, but it simply isn’t true. With all the reports coming out, which the mainstream media chooses to ignore for the most part, of voter fraud and rigging of the system perpetuated by democrats, it makes sense to make sure of the legitimacy of the election before conceding.

    Does anyone else find it ironic that the media and democrats are appalled by Trumps refusal to roll over and die by the instant stated election results when they and the media to this day proclaim and write articles of how the 2000 election was stolen, and Al Gore was right to refuse to accept the results. Or is it the same old, same old, history starts today?
    nomadchocolate wrote: »
    A big problem is that democrats and liberals in general position themselves as a moral authority so ignore any contradictions and hypocrisies. Clinton has the media in her pocket and is still struggling
    Amerika wrote: »
    If the election process isn't executed in a fair and honest manner, can you really admonish someone for not willing to submit to blind faith for that change of power in America?


    On reply to all three these comments, if the election is rigged against Donald Trump, what about every other GOP representative that will win on election night? Are we to assume that the whole election was rigged and their election cannot be trusted? If you question the validity of the elections like he seems to be then every person elected is elected in a false vote. You cannot pick and choose where voter fraud will happen.


  • #327
    nomadchocolate
    Closed Accounts Posts: 150 ✭✭nomadchocolate


    Billy86 wrote: »
    Define "struggling"?

    Trump is a ludicrous candidate. Clinton should be crushing it. Some polls indicates that she is but it is so disappointing that the DNC couldn't find a better candidate than Clinton.


  • #328
    johnnyskeleton
    Moderators, Entertainment Moderators, Politics Moderators Posts: 14,567 Mod ✭✭✭✭johnnyskeleton


    Billy86 wrote: »
    The exact point at which everyone would be best served to stop reading this post. You'll save yourself seeing this poster go on and try to use Trumps own campaign (breitbart) as a source of any integrity.

    Anyone confused should Google O'Keeffe and ask themselves if this is the kind of argument they should even be bothered engaging in.

    Mod Note:

    Attack the post not the poster. Suggesting that people should google something is not proper discussion. You have previously been threadbanned for this type of posting.


  • #329
    nomadchocolate
    Closed Accounts Posts: 150 ✭✭nomadchocolate


    Enzokk wrote: »
    On reply to all three these comments, if the election is rigged against Donald Trump, what about every other GOP representative that will win on election night? Are we to assume that the whole election was rigged and their election cannot be trusted? If you question the validity of the elections like he seems to be then every person elected is elected in a false vote. You cannot pick and choose where voter fraud will happen.

    I don't believe the election is rigged and I'm not a Trump fan.

    I do attach legitimacy and veracity to some of the e-mails and the interpretations associated but alot of the left are dismissing it as Russian interference which is not good enough.

    Some of the e-mails and the interpretations are ridiculous though.


  • #330
    Amerika
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,175 ✭✭✭Amerika


    The IBD/TIPP poll has Trump up in the polls by I point.

    http://www.investors.com/politics/trump-leads-clinton-by-one-point-going-into-debate-in-ibdtipp-tracking-poll/

    The point of significance here is the IBD/TIPP poll was the most accurate poll in the 2012 election.

    http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/11/10/which-polls-fared-best-and-worst-in-the-2012-presidential-race/?_r=0


  • Advertisement
  • #331
    Billy86
    Closed Accounts Posts: 23,495 ✭✭✭✭Billy86


    nomadchocolate wrote: »
    Trump is a ludicrous candidate. Clinton should be crushing it. Some polls indicates that she is but it is so disappointing that the DNC couldn't find a better candidate than Clinton.

    Clinton is crushing it though, some bookies were paying out even before last night on her winning and she had about an 87% chance of a win on 538 which is pretty definitive for election races. There aims are no grounds to say she is struggling - she's been miles ahead for a month or so and president elect for over a fortnight now. Now it's just a matter of if this will be the biggest landslide since since 1996 or 1988.


Advertisement