Trump vs Clinton Round 3. Probably the biggest debate ever.

All knowledge is malleable. There is no universally accepted fact and never has been (hence the clash in cultures, which is really all about clash between knowledges). Those with influence, wealth and power get to define truth, even scientific truth < Copernican Revolution>

Where to start?

Culture is not the same as knowledge.

Scientific truth may be somewhat bent by influence and wealth, but not defined. You can't bend something that can't happen - as Trump has admitted when he's been looking for ways of protecting his coastal investments from rising sea levels (he can deny it, but he still has to live with the consequences of it happening...)

Of course there are universally accepted facts (except perhaps by the very ignorant or willfully blind). E.g. the Earth orbits the Sun; it takes an egg and a sperm to make a baby; water makes up about 70% of the Earth surface; and so on.

Why are you bringing in Copernicus???

Is this type of reasoning that leads you to be on Trump's side?

He lost the election on the first part of the debate. At least 50% of the electorate do not want Rode vs Wade overturned. He was very cagey about it saying federally he would remove the rules and leave it to the individual states. That is not good enough. If a woman wants an abortion she should be able to have one. Making it illegal doesn't benefit anyone apart from a bunch of catholic priests who don't have families to feed.

He nailed her on the Clinton foundation. I though he could have done a lot better. I hated her suit. Wearing a white Mao suit as a nod towards the suffragettes movement turned me off. She is one of the most corrupt politicians we have here in the US. The only reason she is in the position she is in because of the millions she has paid to special interests and those who realize her incompetence.

After watching the debate last night I was left wishing Chris Christie was running on the Republican ticket. He would have wiped the floor with her last night.

I think the real issue with this election is that so many people, like myself, do not like either candidate. I think a lot of them will not vote.

But people are saying that Obama may pardon her before he leaves anyway

She hasn't been charged or convicted of anything so a pardon is a bit moot.

Bertrand, most women will not vote for him. I'd love to know how his wife will vote in the privacy of the ballot :)

The biggest shocker of the night was his response to the question of accepting the result of the election. Even the Wall Street Journal and Fox News are gobsmacked at that one - shows a complete lack of understanding of or indeed any interest in the US constitution and our democratic process.

Mistigirl - Nope. All knowledge is malleable. There is no universally accepted fact and never has been (hence the clash in cultures, which is really all about clash between knowledges). Those with influence, wealth and power get to define truth, even scientific truth < Copernican Revolution>.

He said on record that he grabs women by the pussy and can do it because he is a celebrity.

He said women should be punished for having abortions.

He is a repugnant human being who is seriously deranged and I fear for the world if he is anywhere near real power.

He would overturn Roe v.Wade.

He wants to punish women who have abortions.

How can any woman seriously want him to be president?

There's a problem of relativism here. Whose 'bottom line' is the correct version?

Relativism is of limited use when applied to real world problems. The global warming example given above is a good one. There may be some room for useful divergence of opinion between experts, for example on the precise value of climate sensitivity (which is not yet known with precision, although an absolute value does of course exist), but there is no room for debate between experts and non-experts over whether CO2 is a greenhouse gas or not. You can't argue with physics.

Equally, there may be some room for debate in certain essentially political fields - eg the Citizens United question, or on the extent to which free speech should be permitted (cf the different approach to this in the US vs the UK). OTOH where opinions have real world consequences, holding opinions which are contrary to facts can't be justified on grounds of "relativism". You are entitled to your own opinions but not your own facts.

What no-one seems to be commenting on is this: if he's saying a) he's not going to necessarily respect the result of the election and b) if he does win he's going to lock HC up (the implication being that he would bypass the legal process to do so) what's to stop him c) abolishing term limits if he does become president? He seems to like the dictatorial style of government rather than democracy.

I don't think HC is a great candidate but this guy really is beyond belief.

I bet everyone's wishing they could have 4 more years of Obama right about now.

Are you a Ukip voter?
Nope. And I agree entirely with this: I profoundly disagree that all opinions should be respected equally.

There's a problem of relativism here. Whose 'bottom line' is the correct version?

Mistigirl - are you a Labour voter, by any chance?

Nope. Are you a Ukip voter?

People are entitled to their own opinions, even where those opinions are incompatible with political, economic or physical realities, and they are entitled to express those opinions at the ballot box.

OTOH, I profoundly disagree that all opinions should be respected equally. No one should be compelled to treat stupid opinions as if they are rational.

Wikileaks was mentioned, but Hillary seized upon that to start the debate around the interference in the election and hacking by foreign governments, leaving The Don to defend himself about his relationship with Putin.

I haven't seen it all- did Trump destroy Clinton with lots of shocking stuff from Wikileaks? Or, as I suspect, did he not?

When exactly has Trump been on the side of the working class (or any people) with actions, rather than words?

He's discriminated against black employers.
He's built for the rich.
He's used illegal immigrants, rather than pay fair salaries.
He's sent his manufacturing abroad.
He's used Chinese steel.
For what? Larger profit margins.

She couldn't really promise to create jobs in a specific state as a Senator. That was her mistake then. But there's a long tradition of politicians to make promises that they won't or can't keep.

Still, "In March 2001, Clinton brought seven bills to stimulate the upstate economy before the Senate; none of them passed." I'm sure it didn't help that the Senate had a Republican majority then.

You do realise that Trump's promises and claims for jobs creation are even more unrealistic, though?

Regardless, the conditions are not currently met for open borders, if they will ever be. She said it was a dream, which I think we can all agree that it tends to be an utopia. And she has voted in favour of border control. I do think actions speak louder than words and if anyone should doubt her, it should be the brazilian bankers, I suspect. :)

What Mistigri was saying was that some people are so stupid that they think their uninformed opinions carry the same weight as those of experts who have spent their lives studying a subject.

A typical example will be a climate researcher who says the world is getting warmer after studying the data thoroughly, vs someone who decides it's wrong and shouts to the world that Global Warming is not happening.

Those people exist and I'm fed up with them as well.

But for undecideds who want jobs etc, those are his strong points and he emphasised them again and said she wanted "open borders" and had created hardly any jobs and doesn't know how to.

She clarified the open boarders were about energy trading.

In any case, she emphasised several times that she is for regulation of immigration and previous checks. But she is also for facilitating the legalisation of those already in the US, with children there, instead of splitting up the families and that have been paying federal taxes (unlike Trump...). You cannot say that he won there.

He can't also claim that she didn't create jobs or knows how to, as she was not involved in the economy while in government, nor had any executive role in the Senate, nor a role that could make decisions by herself, just vote.
It would be like claiming that he didn't know how to lead the Armed Forces, because he has never had that opportunity.
As for trades under Bill Clinton, the economy didn't suffer then as it did in the aftermath of George W, with the deregulation of Wall Street.
She pointed out clearly that Obama had brought the US back from a very bad place, and that she intended to consolidate the economy and improve on it.
Again, she pointed out that his economy plans were NOT realistic. Not according to her, but several experts.

She also pointed out how, throughout her career, she has mostly been concerned with working for people, while Trump has been concerned with amassing a fortune for himself.

I'm surprised nobody asked him about his financial interests abroad. That would have been a major blow for him, I think.

stupid people who think their opinions count as much as those of people who actually know what they are talking about

Mistigirl - are you a Labour voter, by any chance? I know several whizzkids who also believe that ordinary people are too stupid to have the vote (I wonder where they get that from?). Given that human intelligence is normally distributed (meaning that most of us are of equal intelligence), I find beliefs such as this one very hard to understand. If you are unhappy with voting behaviour, the answer surely lies in better education of the population (which is what social media is doing right now), not taking the vote away from them on account of their stupidity. You are incorrect in your assumptions.