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

[claig]

Oct 20th 2 am UK time.

Last chance for the Establishment to stop the Trump surge in the polls.
World leaders will be watching, Establishments will be tuning in on the edge of their seats in trepidation.

People will be laughing, diving into the popcorn and knocking back the alcohol.

Round 3. Rock'n'roll.

Gumpendorf: but what do you have to say about what he said? It's not enough to say he's on Trumps side, because that doesn't mean everything he says is wrong.

These parts:

they ignore an avalanche of hard evidence about corruption, pay to play, political favoritism emanating out of Hillary Clinton’s years as secretary of state. We found out this week, that while she was secretary of state, her officials in that department actually directed reconstruction contracts in Haiti to friends of the Clinton. this is precisely the kind of pay to play politics she said wasn’t happening as their foundation accepted tens of millions of dollars from foreign governments.”

“Just this morning The New York Times is reporting that in exchange for a five-minute meeting, the government of Qatar pledged $1 million to the Clinton Foundation. *

I mean say, just those bits. What would you say about those bits?

excellent bolding there Winchester

I read that FBI staffers are furious at comfy for spiffing the Hillary case.

comey

'I read that FBI staffers are furious at Comey for spiffing the Hillary case.'

Yes, it seems like soe are.

"FBI agents are ready to revolt over the cozy Clinton probe

Veteran FBI agents say FBI Director James Comey has permanently damaged the bureau’s reputation for uncompromising investigations with his “cowardly” whitewash of former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s mishandling of classified information using an unauthorized private email server.

Feeling the heat from congressional critics, Comey last week argued that the case was investigated by career FBI agents, “So if I blew it, they blew it, too.”

nypost.com/2016/10/06/fbi-agents-are-ready-to-revolt-over-the-cozy-clinton-probe/

It is not getting huge coverage on TV because of all the Trump accuser news.

WW, I don't think Hillary is above reproach. I'd be surprised if any politician after a few decades of service in the US was beyond reproach.

But for every accusation that you have just listed, check what there is on Trump.
Either vote for none of them, or for Hillary. Because when you discount all equivalent sins, you are still left with a huge list on Trump's side. Most of all his character.

I thought Trump was bad when this all started, but it has come to be much worse than I expected.

Genuine question - how concerning is this to people who think that Hillary deserves the job? MN is not behaving so I can't link the article. Apologies for c & p:

"In an effort to prevent foreign governments, organizations, and individuals from influencing the policy decisions of American national leaders, campaign-finance laws prohibit U.S. political figures from accepting money from foreign sources. But as the Washington Post noted in February 2015, the Bill, Hillary, & Chelsea Clinton Foundation “has given donors a way to potentially gain favor with the Clintons outside the traditional political [donation] limits.”

As of February 2015, foreign sources accounted for about one-third of all donors who had given the Clinton Foundation more than $1 million, and over half of those who had contributed more than $5 million. Foreign donors that gave money to the Foundation included: Hezbollah supporter Issam Fares, who once served as deputy prime minister of Lebanon; the Dubai Foundation, which also gave money to the families of Palestinian terrorists killed in action; the royal family of the United Arab Emirates; a Dubai-based company that promotes Sharia Law; a privately-held Chinese construction and trade conglomerate headed by a delegate of the Chinese parliament; and the governments of Saudi Arabia, Brunei, the United Arab Emirates, and Qatar.

Even during Clinton's tenure (2009-13) as secretary of state, the Clinton Foundation received millions of dollars in donations from seven foreign governments.

In August 2016, the Associated Press reported that 85 of Hillary Clinton's 154 scheduled meetings and phone calls with non-governmental personnel during her time at the State Department were with donors who gave $156 million to the Clinton Foundation. The AP report also revealed that the Clinton Foundation had received $170 million in donations from at least 16 foreign governments whose representatives met personally with Mrs. Clinton.

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.

Lweji: I'm not voting myself, and have said I wouldn't vote for either. But there's no way I'd vote for Hillary. Obviously I would agree that neither candidate is 'above reproach' and on these threads I've used much stronger terms about Donald Trump than that! But I agree wholeheartedly (yes, I think it's wholeheartedly) with Claig's view that it is a dangerous time in terms of individual freedoms and the last thing we need is more of the establishment same. I believe there is a racism, venality and misogyny in her that needs dependence from citizens and division among them. I don't believe in open borders; I believe in healthy relationships and movement between strong nation states. I think the time has come to stand up for the open, friendly, healthy nation state standing up for the principles of western enlightenment and democracy. I think with Clinton, we will go backwards.

I kind of know what you'll say - probably you'll fire back exactly the same about Donald Trump. The only thing I would say to that is, I feel like I've seen both sides. I was a true supporter of Bill Clinton and then of Tony Blair. I've been a left-wing activist, I've marched and been on demonstrations. And I think I'm arguing now for the same thing I marched for then: that is, individual freedom and opportunity in a society governed by the principles of mutual consent and honesty. To me it feels like, once the veil has been lifted, it can't be lowered again. I can't 'unknow' or 'unsee' what I know and see.

I truly believe that with the exception of some posters who are just sneering and using nasty language, most people on both sides of the thread are aiming for the same thing. I don't impute to Clinton supporters, a desire to maintain a corrupt establishment and place the boot ever firmly in the face of a resisting populace. We want the same things, but we see different roads towards them. I've said the same thing about Brexit: I think most Remainers (I mean ordinary people, not the fucking Goldman Sachs of the world) want the same as me - but we see different paths towards the same goal.

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?

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.

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.

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

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

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.

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? :)

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!

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.

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.

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?

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

The complete documentary of the recent book called "Clinton Cash" is on youtube. It is also called "Clinton Cash". I haven't watched it but it gets mentioned a lot in articles etc and on TV. The Guardian has done an article on it. There are no smoking guns but apparently a lot about money deals etc, but I haven't actually watched it.

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.

Claig? Do you ever visit TheDonald subreddit?

'Claig? Do you ever visit TheDonald subreddit?'

No. I have heard about it, but I am not that clued up on the internet. I am not even on twitter or facebook, so I don't know anything about reddit, instagram and all the rest.

'Do you ever visit TheDonald subreddit?'

I have heard about memes or something on there, but I haven't got a clue what that is all about.