2016 Presidential Debate III

BobTheCoward said:
That is the case that would work if you impersonated the dead person.
Click to expand...

It is possible that a small number of people do that. But these people are acting as if there being a bunch of dead people on the rolls somehow validates their conspiracy theories of the election being rigged.
 
BobTheCoward said:
They do. You just don't like the answer.
Click to expand...
Which is why they lie such much about abortion...

To what extent is it acceptable to endanger a woman's life by forcing her to carry a pregnancy to term? Taken as a percentage increase in the chance of her dying over and above the norm.
A: <25%
B: 25-50%
C: 50-100%
D: 100-200%
E: 200-400%
F: 400-800%
G: 800-1600%
H: >1600%
 
catsmate said:
He probably doesn't actually care much but a large block of his supporters do.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure that's true: just like most Republicans support a path to citizenship, most evangelicals have made a kind of truce with abortion, provided it is a medical issue or rape.
 
Tony Stark said:
It is possible that a small number of people do that. But these people are acting as if there being a bunch of dead people on the rolls somehow validates their conspiracy theories of the election being rigged.
Click to expand...
Obviously the Federal Election Police must monitor all citizens and immediately remove them from the register. Daily death checks should do it.
 
catsmate said:
Which is why they lie such much about abortion...

To what extent is it acceptable to endanger a woman's life by forcing her to carry a pregnancy to term? Taken as a percentage increase in the chance of her dying over and above the norm.
A: <25%
B: 25-50%
C: 50-100%
D: 100-200%
E: 200-400%
F: 400-800%
G: 800-1600%
H: >1600%
Click to expand...

Moreover, how much is it acceptable to risk the life of both mother and child?

Besides, isn't taking a baby out of a uterus a few days before due date called a "Cesarean Section" birth?
:confused:
 
catsmate said:
Which is why they lie such much about abortion...

To what extent is it acceptable to endanger a woman's life by forcing her to carry a pregnancy to term? Taken as a percentage increase in the chance of her dying over and above the norm.
A: <25%
B: 25-50%
C: 50-100%
D: 100-200%
E: 200-400%
F: 400-800%
G: 800-1600%
H: >1600%
Click to expand...

To some the additional risk acceptable is infinite.
 
I don't usually get into these threads, and have nothing really to add on the general debate issues. I don't generally watch any TV news, and out here in the boondocks can't get a Fox channel anyway, so I don't know where Chris Wallace stands in the Fox hierarchy, but I thought he did a good job. If nothing else comes of the whole business, I think the debate was good for Fox.
 
bruto said:
I don't usually get into these threads, and have nothing really to add on the general debate issues. I don't generally watch any TV news, and out here in the boondocks can't get a Fox channel anyway, so I don't know where Chris Wallace stands in the Fox hierarchy, but I thought he did a good job. If nothing else comes of the whole business, I think the debate was good for Fox.
Click to expand...

Well, that's one thing Trump accomplished: he made Fox news appear reasonable by comparison.
 
Tony Stark said:
It is possible that a small number of people do that. But these people are acting as if there being a bunch of dead people on the rolls somehow validates their conspiracy theories of the election being rigged.
Click to expand...

It's very typical conspiracy thinking.
Postulate a conspiracy and find one thing to bolster the theme but completely ignore the logistics, or any details at all for that matter.

Millions of dead on the rolls. Ok, fine, now show that this translates into millions, or even thousands of those being used as faux voters, AND show that it is being done by only one side.
 
Argumemnon said:
Well, that's one thing Trump accomplished: he made Fox news appear reasonable by comparison.
Click to expand...

No one is mentioning the fact that the premise of one of the questions Chris Wallace asked of Hillary Clinton was false. The score card for debate moderators is the quality of answers they get from the candidates and he did a good job here even though Clinton had to correct him in her answer on what she was talking about with regard to energy policy.
 
And the answers are in:

slyjoe said:
Over/under:
Trump says "rigged" five times or more - actual: 1
Trump says "tremendous" nine times or more - actual: 8
WikiLeaks is mentioned four times or more - actual: 5
"Make America Great Again" said more than five times - actual: 3

Shaking of hands - 50/50 - that would be a big noooo

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...in-vegas-tonights-debate-is-a-wagering-event/

You may want to use these numbers to determine the rules for your drinking game.
Click to expand...
 
bruto said:
I don't usually get into these threads, and have nothing really to add on the general debate issues. I don't generally watch any TV news, and out here in the boondocks can't get a Fox channel anyway, so I don't know where Chris Wallace stands in the Fox hierarchy, but I thought he did a good job. If nothing else comes of the whole business, I think the debate was good for Fox.
Click to expand...
Likely so. There's much chatter about the next-gen Murdochs wanting to take Fox News mainstream and this will help (along with the immolation of Ailes).

This, of course, would open up space for Trump to pour money into.
 
Spindrift said:
One last thing about Trump I want to throw in is his apparent total lack of a sense of humor and the ability to understand what is funny. When Trump was roasted by Comedy Central in the 90's, the writing staff helps the roastee with jokes. Apparently Donald edited a lot of the jokes. Crossing out the punchlines and just leaving the set up. If you can find it, it is one of the more painful roasts to watch.
Click to expand...

I actually thought Donald showed that he did have some sense of humor, in that roast. He sat down and took it like a champ, and then his final speech had its funny moments. Again, he did a fine job at playing himself.

Out of curiosity, do you have any info on what jokes he edited and what exactly he took out from them? It seems to me that if he did have that power, he would have flat out deleted the one about his daughter, which did make it into the roast.
 
Ron_Tomkins said:
I actually thought Donald showed that he did have some sense of humor, in that roast. He sat down and took it like a champ, and then his final speech had its funny moments. Again, he did a fine job at playing himself.

Out of curiosity, do you have any info on what jokes he edited and what exactly he took out from them? It seems to me that if he did have that power, he would have flat out deleted the one about his daughter, which did make it into the roast.
Click to expand...

I believe he forbade them from making jokes about how rich he is.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom