Trump vs Clinton Round 2. Bigger debate than the last one.

[claig]

Round 2, Monday morning 2 am UK time.

Will "the real Trump" show up?

No it hasn't been talked about. They simply prefer a Trump scandal. Look at the seriousness of the charges against Clinton re: classified material . Instead of this we get pieces about say, Trumps hand movements, or his hair. It's almost absurd.

I agree: I said upthread I have no idea why that does not have more traction. Ii think it's because people basically don't believe women. I think a lot of the male outrage about this tape is entirely faux, and obligatory because it's on tape.

Hillary is such a hawk: why people on the left have such a knee jerk positive response to her I can't work out.

My second par is about the alleged rape.

Some fact checking about Benghazi and what Hillary said or not to the families

www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2016/feb/09/what-did-hillary-clinton-tell-families-people-who-/
(some family members complain about her, others don't remember any mentions of videos)

And about the video
www.factcheck.org/2016/07/video-clinton-and-benghazi/
www.factcheck.org/2016/06/the-benghazi-timeline-clinton-edition/

And a comprehensive one on the second debate:
www.factcheck.org/2016/10/factchecking-the-second-presidential-debate/

Look at the seriousness of the charges against Clinton re: classified material

There is no evidence, just possibilities, that it could have been hacked.
It's not even as if she sent sensitive information to any enemies.
I haven't seen any claims that any enemies knew about information ahead of time that could be due to hacking her emails.

Unlike Trump who invited Russia to hack her emails. That's what I call serious.

Ok I can't have this conversation if you think that joke was serious, but Clinton's email scandal doesn't matter. Sorry Lweji I like talking to you and I respect your point of view but yknow.

I'm addressing this to you, WW, and all the others on this thread who've expressed approval for Trump, or indeed, anything but outright condemnation.

By not condemning him you are almost as bad as he is.

This, from John Oliver, addressed to Trump's supporters:

"Trump “alone does not bear the burden of his conduct, because he alone did not make himself your party’s nominee”, responded Oliver. “All of you have consistently supported him through some absolutely heinous shit. In his very first campaign speech, he called Mexicans ‘rapists’, and that was just the beginning."

Now, you'd be happy for someone to be president who thinks he can (and has, I've no doubt) grab women's genitals whenever he likes.

You lot appall me!

The niece of Marthin Luther King Jr endorses Trump.

John Oliver is Oxbridge. Don't fall for the tricks of the Establishment. This is about taking control of America back and the end of globalism. That is why all of the Establishment's hired hands are against Trump and why such a large proportion of the American public are for Trump.

What else do you expect fro John Oliver?

Don't fall for their tricks. Remember Brexit.

Your message is not such a slam-dunk it needs posting twice. However since you insist:

Breadandwine: I am not 'almost as bad' as Trump and neither are his supporters. By that token you are 'almost as bad' as Hillary Clinton and I highly doubt that: I'm sure your intentions are good and that you hope she would bring about better things for the maximum number of people. I'm don't think she will: I think she will make things worse for many people, in fact as she already has made things worse for many people with her hawkish interventions around the globe. However if you are so desperate that you need to use that comparison, as so many commentators are, you should bear in mind that it's likely to persuade no one to your case: the most impact it could have is on the polls, with people shamed into saying they'll vote for Hillary Clinton, when they have no intention of doing so.

By the way, the Guardian does not care about women: its coverage of the Cologne sexual assaults is testament to that. It is consumed by its addiction to a socialist global agenda and will tolerate no facts inconvenient to its cause.

Trump said

"We will no longer surrender this country or its people to teh false song of globalism"

and Senator Jeff Sessions was four square behind him as he has been from the start when he was the first Sneator to endorse Trump and defy the Establishment and in the past week, the liars in the media pretended that Jeff Sessions was in a meeting with the RNC and wanted Trump to stand down. They will try any trick to stop Trump because he intends to stop them and end globalism and all their scams and schemes.

They simply prefer a Trump scandal.

Quite frankly, Trump prefers a Trump scandal. He's been courting media attention since he started. He initiated scandal after scandal with his own statements and outrageous comments. Even almost criminal incitement to violence.

He has been accusing adversaries from all directions, mainly with lies.

Nobody can complain now that he's attracting media attention, particularly putting his own abilities and his trustworthiness in question.

Quite a lot of the media attention he gets is fact checking his own lies.

Not a great excuse for the media's failure to cover Hillary's issues. The media made its choice, and directed its coverage accordingly. Unless you think the media should just do what Trump prefers.

They are running out of tricks. People know the media works for them, just as it worked against Corbyn.

"Tony Blair: I Don't Think There Is A Way Politically To Beat "Insurgent Movement Of Populism"
...
BLAIR: Yeah I think there are parallels between your politics and our politics. But this happens all over the world right now. You get these insurgent movements of populism, left and right. An insurgent movement of populism took my political party over in the UK for example. So we in a sense went for the Bernie Sanders model OK?
...
SCARBOROUGH: It's been 25 years; the new Democrats came to power here. New Labor under your leadership. The intellectual argument seemed to be won for globalization. Visceral argument seems to be in worse shape. Would you agree with that? And how do you bridge that?

BLAIR: Yeah, no I think that's absolutely right.
...
SCARBOROUGH: You've spent time at Yale over the past several years talking to students. I want you to educate us here today. Pretend you're talking to your Yale class and explain what's happening in Western democracies. Why is it that the elites in Washington, in New York, in London, why are we, I'll say we, so disconnected from the rest of the country?

I always talked about Donald Trump's campaign. And nobody thought he was going to win. I had to drive to a wedding in Scranton, Pennsylvania. I got west of Nyack, I walked into a Target, I looked around for three minutes, I got on the phone and I called Mika and I said, "Donald Trump is going to win." And we're all in our bubbles.

Why is it, how is it that elites in Britain missed this coming just like the elites in America missed Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders?

BLAIR: Yeah it's a really good point. I'm tempted to say if I could figure it out completely I'd be running again.

(LAUGHTER)
...
BLAIR: And so it's a combination of these movements are therefore (INAUDIBLE) very real reasons. And that's why I say the elite looks out of touch because it's kind of saying; look we'll manage all this for you. You know, we know best. We'll sort it all out for you. And then because people believe that doesn't meet their case for change and they want real change, social media and the way the relationship between people can come into a sense of belonging very quickly, that then is itself a revolutionary phenomenon. You see this around the world."

www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2016/06/28/tony_blair_i_dont_think_there_is_a_way_politically_to_beat_insurgent_movement_of_populism.html

They have run out of ideas, run out of spin and run out of time and now Trump is going to run the country.

Can't seem to shame the Claigs or the WWs of this world.

I'll concentrate on what the wider world think of Trump.

Here's Stephen Colbert, who reckons that Trump was on much stronger coke on the second debate.

'BLAIR: Yeah it's a really good point. I'm tempted to say if I could figure it out completely I'd be running again.'

The tragedy is we are run by idiots (mainly fro Oxbridge) and that is why we have populist movements all across the world. That is why Trump is going to put an end to the idiocy of the "career politicians" and the chasm that separates them from ordinary people.

Today some of our career politicians are advocating a no fly zone in Syria where we might have to shoot down Russian planes and all that that will entail. Trump will put an end to the idiocy and restore some common sense at last.

Can't seem to shame the Claigs or the WWs of this world

Despite a coherent response on two threads and you repeating three - or four? - times a rant from a left-winger reproduced in a left-wing newspaper that doesn't care about sexual assaults on women. Gosh aren't we recalcitrant!

Claig: Hence why wherefore control of the internet enters stage left…

Trump: GOP rivals want to 'start World War III over Syria'

Donald Trump on Friday accused his GOP rivals of seeking to “start World War III over Syria” and suggested the U.S. let Russia take up the fight against the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS)

"They want to start World War III over Syria. Give me a break," Trump said at the State Fairgrounds in Oklahoma City.

"You know Russia wants to get ISIS right. We want to get ISIS. Russia’s in Syria. Maybe we should let them do it?," he continued. "Let them do it. What the hell are we crazy?"

thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/255052-trump-gop-rivals-want-to-start-world-war-iii-over-syria

Listen to our "career politicians" on the news tonight and what they are suggesting. We must have some common sense ones among the 650 or the 172 etc but they never put anyone with common sense on the BBC, they just have the usual Oxbridge faces. They don't ask Corbyn what he thinks, because he thinks differently to the Oxbridge set.

'Claig: Hence why wherefore control of the internet enters stage left…'

"Obama Admin Wants To Surrender US Control Over Internet To Global Bureaucracy

The Obama administration is planning to relinquish American control over a central portion of Internet governance.

The implications of this move range from control by an international bureaucracy to totalitarian regimes locking up entire portions of the Internet, according to experts."

dailycaller.com/2016/09/24/obama-admin-wants-to-surrender-us-control-over-internet-to-global-bureaucracy/

It has already happened. We know that America has corrupt elites, just like we do, and Trump intends to end the corruption of the system by insiders, but America is a truly great country because it has liberty and freedom of speech enshrined in its Constitution. Without America, the whole world would slowly lose its liberty to the corrupt world elites.

It starts slowly and ever so reasonably: like Merkel having conversations with zuckerberg about posts about migrants. It always starts quietly and then, drip, drip, drip....

Actually social justice warriors have this nailed - bully and harass anyone who puts a word out of (their) line. And that can't at all be blamed on governments... but there's a lovely little trend of self censorship engendered..

I don't think trip wants to make the US grate again

He's a orange little am with a dead cat on his head and trip loves trump

However the left telling poor whites that there just not bright enough twee the woods from the trees will nit help just get on with sorting fucking poverty

People respond to better housing , health care and good schools

'It starts slowly and ever so reasonably: like Merkel having conversations with zuckerberg about posts about migrants'

Absolutely and that was over Cologne again. Same attempts to stop free speech, remove comments from Guardian articles on it etc

'Actually social justice warriors have this nailed - bully and harass anyone who puts a word out of (their) line. And that can't at all be blamed on governments'

The elites encourage it, that is how they try to shame and control the people. That is why the comedians on US TV are all like Oxbridge John Oliver and are all against Trump. It is the same old story, the same old game.

Haven't had a chance to catch up with the thread yet but wanted to add something regarding polls. Polls are minimally useful despite pollsters convincing people to part with lots of money for them. There is not a single methodology out there that can circumvent two important aspects of this measurement 1) a question-answer format induces the giving of a socially desirable response (too many reasons for this to go into here but they include things like the inflation of self-esteem and approval seeking from others). Even if respondents are assured of confidentiality and anonymity, the format itself encourages this phenomenon, depending, of course, on what is considered to be socially desirable at the time 2) the link between implementation intentions and goal activation is not direct. We may have intentions to do something but whether we actually activate that goal is another matter (I intend to lose weight but whether I actually do is far from a given). 1 and 2 are obviously linked as well. I may intend to vote for Hillary because that is a socially desirable thing to do but whether I will or not is never a certainty.

To date, my money's still on Trump. Obviously, no-one knows what may come next.

winchester

Here is my problem , i dont know what lies she told re Benghazi. The lies i have found on line have either been debunked or cannot be proved one way or the other

So i dont know which lies

Not that it matters as i am not voting