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

Don't know where to put this - did you see it's now legal in Sweden to fly the flag of ISIS?

What is at stake is far more than misogyny and bad jokes. That can be dealt with in time; this is about the continuing enrichment of certain politicians via favours and knobbling. Hilllary comes across to me as a reductionist, i.e. grab as much $ as you can, because what the hell ... there's always going to be corruption and as I am well-placed to get some of this money, why not?

Trump is not a "politician", he is a doer, a businessman

A businessman is keen to find a solution to a problem; they think differently and act decisively based on experience. People who operate in any sphere of business develop a real sixth sense. You either shut down a business or you negotiate a smaller profit margin for yourself, but at least the factory and staff get to keep their jobs AND that b-man will be more determined that next time negotiations will go his way.

There are crazies on there I'll say that much. But then there's crazies on both sides. There are some semi-decent posts at times that raise valid points

It's straightforward. Just Google: reddit the donald. It should be a top result. Reddit is easy enough to browse. Just like a giant basic forum so to speak

Claig? Do you ever visit TheDonald subreddit?

Thanks for the link, fourmummy.

Like I said earlier, I'd have been surprised if HC's hands were completely clean.
It's, still, hard to say what kind of negotiations went on behind the scenes, and that HC might not be able to explain publicly, for those approvals. The Obama administration did see a shift on international circumstances, so it's hard to say without looking into the details of why those countries benefited more than other countries that saw a big increase too.

In any case, and while I might be swayed against any other candidate, she still seems better to me than Trump.
On account of so many things that are hateful about him.

Lweji Under Clinton's leadership, the State Department approved $165 billion worth of commercial arms sales to 20 nations whose governments have given money to the Clinton Foundation, according to an IBTimes analysis of State Department and foundation data. That figure derived from the three full fiscal years of Clinton’s term as Secretary of State (from October 2010 to September 2012) represented nearly double the value of American arms sales made to the those countries and approved by the State Department during the same period of President George W. Bush’s second term.

www.ibtimes.com/clinton-foundation-donors-got-weapons-deals-hillary-clintons-state-department-1934187

Oh, I've heard about the Trump foundation. You should look it up too.
I posted one instance just a few posts down.
Then there's how he uses it as a charity front without putting money on it.

But would you agree that you can't just dismiss something because the 'wrong' people are saying it?

They are hinting and accusing, but no evidence of actual wrong doing.
Has anyone answered those questions I asked earlier, about the donations and the guns?

WW, I'm not really buying your stated position. You don't read as someone truly on the fence. And I'm very surprised with your stated background that you'd put Trump on a same footing as Hillary. And how would you trust anything this man claims.
Do you really think he's anti-establishment?

As far as the rape case goes, I have nothing but sympathy for that poor little girl.

However, her story keeps changing in order to vilify Clinton. Do I blame her? No. She went through something awful. But for years the facts were that she was riding around in a truck with some men she knew and trusted and was given alcohol and then raped. Now she says she was yanked off her bike on her way to church. She also apparently says (or someone speaking for her says) that she was left in a coma by the attack, which is a lie. Doctors and police have reports of speaking to her in the days following the attack. There was no coma unless she fell into it a week later and then emerged well enough to be deemed fit for trial. Here The interviewer himself says that Hillary was not laughing at the victim.

I think it's funny how the rednecks in my country cling to the Constitution because it says they get to keep their guns, yet insist that Trump is going to get in and throw out all the Muslims, and then say Hillary's awful for the rape case.

The Constitution also guarantees freedom of religion and the right to a speedy trial with a lawyer. She did her damn job as per the Constitution.

Trump is a joke. He's not a good businessman, he's a crook, and he's just an all around shitty person. In no way is he fit to lead this country.

No Lweji that's not why. And I haven't used Trump tweets. It's an assessment of its fact checking historically and currently.

But would you agree that you can't just dismiss something because the 'wrong' people are saying it? The problem is Trump supporters have to say it, because the media quite simply isn't. It's not investigating one hundredth of shady Clinton dealings as much as it's looking at Trump. That's why it all comes from a biased source, because if it didn't come from them, it wouldn't come at all.

How much, for example, have you heard about the Trump Foundation? There is a bit, but it's not much. More than you hear about the Clinton foundation but not that much, considering. There's a reason for that. If Hillary Clinton started homing in on and laying into the Trump foundation she leaves herself wide open for the same and she doesn't want that at all.

And she doesn't want to talk about emails. - she doesn't want to give press conferences because there are so many questions she doesn't want to face.

WW

We don't know the details so it's hard to comment but I worked in the UK public sector for years. This is the kind of stuff that happened. It's how the world has been for many, many years.

So I think the e-Mail server allegations are ridiculous and I'm not surprised the Clinton Foundation isn't squeaky clean (the Trump Foundation allegations are just as bad).

What I do care about is having a safe pair of hands in the WH at a time when the world is in turmoil.

No-one who watches or listens to Trump for 5 minutes would think he was competent to be President. He can't hold a thought long enough to express it, he's narcissistic, misogynistic, racist and volatile. And that's before we start on his relationship with Russia.

So it's no contest for me. In a choice between Trump and HRC, there is no choice. I happen to think HRC will be a good president, and have been around long enough to remember when we thought she was a good SoS. And the feminist in me says, an older female President - Hallelujah!

Also
Politifact has a known bias

FGS, people have used Trump tweets, and clearly Trump biased links to justify accusations on Hillary, and now Politifact has a "known" bias?
Is that because it's called bullshit on most of what Trump has said? :)

But would I take it you think pay to play dealings haven't happened?

I don't know. Is there any evidence of it?

I asked pertinent questions about the deals. Questions that anyone would ask when trying to establish a link.

Yes, that is concerning. Politifact has a known bias. But would I take it you think pay to play dealings haven't happened?

Yes, I know that about Pence. I'm asking about what he said. Why do you think what he said is wrong.

Pence is anti-choice on abortion, a tea party darling turned firm member of the "Republican establishment" (Paul Ryan like him), pro-discrimination against gay ppl, free marketeer.

the last thing we need is more of the establishment same.

I strongly disagree.

The last thing we need is whatever new Trump is bringing. I'd rather stay with the devil we know.

About as concerning as this:
www.nytimes.com/2016/09/15/us/politics/pam-bondi-donald-trump-foundation.html?_r=0

The attorney general of New York had recently filed a lawsuit against Donald J. Trump alleging fraud in the marketing of Trump University’s real estate and wealth-building seminars. Had Florida ever conducted its own investigation, the reporter asked.

The call set off an exchange of emails between Ms. Meale and top lawyers in the office. She learned that 23 complaints about Trump-related education enterprises had been filed before Ms. Bondi became attorney general in 2011, and one since. They had never generated a formal investigation, she wrote the reporter, but added, “We are currently reviewing the allegations in the New York complaint.”

The Sentinel’s report, which was published on Sept. 13, 2013, paraphrased Ms. Meale’s response and took it a step further, saying that Ms. Bondi’s office would “determine whether Florida should join the multi-state case.” Four days later, a check for $25,000 from the Donald J. Trump Foundation landed in the Tampa office of a political action committee that had been formed to support Ms. Bondi’s 2014 re-election. In mid-October, her office announced that it would not be acting on the Trump University complaints.
Ms. Bondi, meanwhile, has failed to explain why she accepted Mr. Trump’s check even after learning that her office was examining the New York case against Trump University. Six months later, she allowed him to host a $3,000-per-head fund-raiser for her at his Mar-a-Lago Club in Palm Beach. Mr. Trump attended the event, which records indicate raised at least $50,000."

OTOH, fact check allegations about Hillary's Foundation
politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2016/sep/01/fact-checking-clinton-foundation-controversy/

As for that statement
In May 2015, the International Business Times reported that the Clinton State Department had approved billions of dollars in arms deals with governments that donated to the Clinton Foundation, including governments that were infamous for their appalling human-rights records.

I need more info on that.
Were the contracts unusual? Had the US never done any such deals? Were there justifiable reasons for the deals?