Hillary - Trash First Debate

[DPG21920]

HRC a victim? If you think HRC is an honest, good person I have a problem with you. Not as much as I have a problem with Trump supporters, but damn.

You are straight up lying to yourself if you are pretending like HRC is trustworthy. She lies, shifts her opinions to help in the moment for gain and has a history of supporting things that have proven to be harmful.

Sure, compared to trump she's an angel. But that is not the question. HRC standing on her own, not compared to Trump, I feel is a pretty deplorable person too with plenty of skeletons in her closet.

What she has going for her is table etiquette. She at least knows how to lie through her teeth to keep tensions down and that is important as a President I guess.

[boutons_deux]

"she would actually be governing"

The kind of stuff she has said she wants to do mostly cannot be done by a President by Executive order, and mostly has to be passed by Congress (Repugs will continue to be "strict obstructionists" for anything that helps the 99%).

As was asked, was specifically horrible stuff CAN she can do ALONE as Pres that you don't like?

Even stuff that can be done by Executive order Cons utionally, will be sued by the Repugs to block it or tie it up in the courts for years.

[vy65]

Given the lists that he's circulated to this point, Judges who are rabidly conservative and perfectly willing to engage in their own "judicial activism" to achieve particular political ends.

I'll admit that my quarrel with them lies largely in fundamental disagreements about the virtues of protecting the individual against the State through the 4th and 5th Amendments, protection of political and other minorities through (particularly) the 5th and 14th Amendments, the limits on the government recognized to date through the Establishment Clause, the value of a robust tort litigation environment in our courts to protect the safety of citizens against the purely economic concerns of business, and (mostly) about what I think is the intentionally expansive nature of Cons utional language to deal with issues that haven't even yet arisen.

I'd much prefer to see the next President appoint judges and justices in the mold of Steven Breyer or Anthony Kennedy (or, perhaps better yet, David Souter) than in the mold of Antonin Scalia or Clarence Thomas.

Thanks. I'll defer to you on the cons utional aspects since that's your bailiwick, I think, but man you are fooling yourself if you think robust tort litigation has anything to do with combating a "profits over people" mentality.

I do agree that it would be best to appoint conservatives, since politics through judicial activism seems inevitable regardless of you bleeding red or blue.

[Reck]

I think Trump's in trouble. Hillary is giving a speech at a North Carolina rally and the people there actually sound like they want to be there. Enthusiastic for once.

Big crowd, too.

Hillary also seems like she's not a ing corpse.

[boutons_deux]

TRUMP THREATENS TO SKIP REMAINING DEBATES IF HILLARY IS THERE

HEMPSTEAD, N.Y. — Plunging the future of the 2016 Presidential debates into doubt, Donald J. Trump said on Tuesday morning that he would not participate in the remaining two debates if Hillary Clinton is there.

Trump blasted the format of Monday night’s debate by claiming that the presence of Clinton was “specifically designed” to distract him from delivering his message to the American people.

“Every time I said something, she would say something back,” he said. “It was rigged.”

He also lambasted the “underhanded tactics” his opponent used during the debate.

“She kept on bringing up things I said or did,” he added. “She is a very nasty person.”

Turning to CNN, Trump criticized the network’s use of a split screen showing both him and Clinton throughout the telecast.

“It should have been just me,” he said. “That way people could have seen how really good my temperament is.”

The billionaire said that debate organizers had not yet responded to his ultimatum, but he warned that

if he does not get assurances in writing that future debates will be “un-rigged, Hillary-wise,” he will not participate.

“I have said time and time again that I would only do these debates if I am treated fairly,” he added.

“The only way I can be guaranteed of being treated fairly is if Hillary Clinton is not there.”

http://www.newyorker.com/humor/borowitz-report/trump-threatens-to-skip-remaining-debates-if-hillary-is-there

[dabom]

[boutons_deux]

Trash, as his habit of fuzzy thinking, misstating, and outright lying, endorsed by the Federal govt's ICE?

no

and the UNIONS (that Repugs hate totally) lied about Hillary, following Trash's example

""Her plan is total amnesty plus open borders," Mr. Crane said, without disclosing the percentage of union members who voted for the Trump endorsement.

"Let us be clear: the non-enforcement agenda of this administration, favored by Secretary Clinton, results in the daily loss of life and victimization of many, to include not only American citizens but also those attempting to immigrate to our country," Crane added."

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politic...ion-agents-did

[FromWayDowntown]

you are fooling yourself if you think robust tort litigation has anything to do with combating a "profits over people" mentality.

If you say so. My experience is that tort reform is generally not good for average citizens.

I do agree that it would be best to appoint conservatives, since politics through judicial activism seems inevitable regardless of you bleeding red or blue.

I don't think I said that I was hoping for conservatives, so if you're agreeing with me about the idea that conservative judges and justices would be good, we don't actually have an agreement.

[101A]

(shrugs)

One has actively worked for children's charities, and done pro bono work for same. One used his charity foundation to pay for card-board cutouts of himself, and to pay his own personal legal obligations.

One was stupid and careless with email. One has a record of stiffing vendors, has been sued thousands of times, and is being sued for outright fraud by people who trusted him with large parts of their personal savings.

You can't argue the two are somehow equally bad.

Ask yourself what specifically makes you think Hillary is "awful". Tick down whatever mental list you have. I will be willing to bet that you can't name anything specific. Hillary Clinton has been the running victim of a political propaganda machine for decades. That machine has forced investigation after investigation after investigation attempting to show something that just isn't there. Individually one should be mindful of the charges, and consider them carefully, but after three plus decades, a pattern of the right throwing things at the wall to see if they stick becomes painfully obvious.

This is what makes me fairly skeptical of "crooked" Hillary tropes.

She forgets everything. I don't know how many times I've heard her answer questions with "I don't recall", or "I can't remember". This dates back decades. She's either suffering from mad cow disease, or is some form of autistic. I was, frankly, amazed at how much she could remember during the debate. I thought it would be boring with her blank staring at the camera and shrugging her shoulders the whole time.

[101A]

That will, for me, be some delicious irony.
The wits in the Republican party who have put their party over the good of the country and their cons utional duty, have decided not to approve a fairly conservative, respected judge, will be faced with accepting nominees that will be decidedly less conservative.

The wits will approve him a couple days after Hillary wins, IMO.

[101A]

HRC a victim? If you think HRC is an honest, good person I have a problem with you. Not as much as I have a problem with Trump supporters, but damn.

You are straight up lying to yourself if you are pretending like HRC is trustworthy. She lies, shifts her opinions to help in the moment for gain and has a history of supporting things that have proven to be harmful.

Sure, compared to trump she's an angel. But that is not the question. HRC standing on her own, not compared to Trump, I feel is a pretty deplorable person too with plenty of skeletons in her closet.

What she has going for her is table etiquette. She at least knows how to lie through her teeth to keep tensions down and that is important as a President I guess.

I agree with this.

[ducks]

Of the 21 polls (including CNN's) mentioned in the Daily Mail story, Trump won 17 of them, including:
Time: Trump 58 percent, Clinton 42 percent
CBS New York: Trump 24K votes, 17,600 votes
San Diego Tribune: Trump 66 percent, Clinton 34 percent
Slate: Trump 54 percent, Clinton 46 percent
Variety: Trump 51 percent, Clinton 48 percent
Fortune: Trump 51 percent, Clinton 49 percent
CNBC: Trump 51 percent, Clinton 49 percent

The CNN poll found that 62 percent of those surveyed by the left-leaning network thought Clinton won. Trump garnered 27 percent.

[clambake]

come on ducks! bring it!

[ducks]

In another survey conducted by Public Policy Polling, viewers gave Clinton the nod by double digits — 51 percent to 40 percent. Those 1,002 viewers were pre-screened before the debate began.

[vy65]

If you say so. My experience is that tort reform is generally not good for average citizens.

That's a little bit different a question than what I think you had initially said -- which was robust tort law allows people to combat corporate practices that place profits over people, etc... To that point, I'd say that the heavy influence of insurance companies in tort litigation (which buffers true corporate exposure) with just how evil plaintiffs attorneys tend to be (look up what Thomas J. Henry has done, for example), and you'll get a glimpse why tort law isn't a good way to reform corporate mentalities.

I don't think I said that I was hoping for conservatives, so if you're agreeing with me about the idea that conservative judges and justices would be good, we don't actually have an agreement.

Meant moderates, my b.

[boutons_deux]

Smile, cons uents: this man may become president.

Look at the mess that we're in. Look at the mess that we're in. As far as the cyber, I agree to parts of what secretary Clinton said, we should be better than anybody else, and perhaps we're not. I don't know if we know it was Russia who broke into the DNC.

She's saying Russia, Russia, Russia. Maybe it was. It could also be China, it could be someone sitting on their bed that weighs 400 pounds...

Look, anyone who refers to cybersecurity or cyberwarfare as "the cyber" is probably better off not discussing this.

But Donald Trump, in last night's debate, felt compelled to further prove why he's in no position to be offering guidance on technological issues.

And anyone who feels compelled to portray hackers as 400-lb bedroom dwellers probably shouldn't be opening their mouth in public at all.

https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20...dwellers.shtml

[ducks]

https://assets.donaldjtrump.com/ClintonFacts.pdf
Top 50 Facts About Hillary Clinton From Trump 'Stakes Of The Election' Address

[FromWayDowntown]

That's a little bit different a question than what I think you had initially said -- which was robust tort law allows people to combat corporate practices that place profits over people, etc... To that point, I'd say that the heavy influence of insurance companies in tort litigation (which buffers true corporate exposure) with just how evil plaintiffs attorneys tend to be (look up what Thomas J. Henry has done, for example), and you'll get a glimpse why tort law isn't a good way to reform corporate mentalities.

By robust tort law, I mean a tort law that isn't neutered by provisions that make it virtually impossible for injured people to actually recover meaningful damages from tortfeasors who actually commit injurious acts.

I'm immersed in personal injury litigation on an almost daily basis. I've seen what tort reform has done to families who've suffered grievous losses only to discover that the culprits in their devastation cannot be held responsible in damages (or in any other way, really) for those losses. Bad lawsuits should be sanctioned and bad plaintiff's lawyers should be punished (as should bad defense lawyers, for that matter). But to curtail broad swaths of liability because allowing it would be "bad for business" -- a refrain of conservative tort reformers on and off the bench -- is not optimal in my view, and the notion of an unprincipled person like Trump nominating pro business acolytes who think little of the suffering of injured people would be disastrous in my opinion.

[101A]

Smile, cons uents: this man may become president.

Look at the mess that we're in. Look at the mess that we're in. As far as the cyber, I agree to parts of what secretary Clinton said, we should be better than anybody else, and perhaps we're not. I don't know if we know it was Russia who broke into the DNC.

She's saying Russia, Russia, Russia. Maybe it was. It could also be China, it could be someone sitting on their bed that weighs 400 pounds...

Look, anyone who refers to cybersecurity or cyberwarfare as "the cyber" is probably better off not discussing this.

But Donald Trump, in last night's debate, felt compelled to further prove why he's in no position to be offering guidance on technological issues.

And anyone who feels compelled to portray hackers as 400-lb bedroom dwellers probably shouldn't be opening their mouth in public at all.

https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20...dwellers.shtml

and when asked about "wiping" her server's hard drive, Hillary said...well you look at 1:05:

[vy65]

By robust tort law, I mean a tort law that isn't neutered by provisions that make it virtually impossible for injured people to actually recover meaningful damages from tortfeasors who actually commit injurious acts.

I'm immersed in personal injury litigation on an almost daily basis. I've seen what tort reform has done to families who've suffered grievous losses only to discover that the culprits in their devastation cannot be held responsible in damages (or in any other way, really) for those losses. Bad lawsuits should be sanctioned and bad plaintiff's lawyers should be punished (as should bad defense lawyers, for that matter). But to curtail broad swaths of liability because allowing it would be "bad for business" -- a refrain of conservative tort reformers on and off the bench -- is not optimal in my view, and the notion of an unprincipled person like Trump nominating pro business acolytes who think little of the suffering of injured people would be disastrous in my opinion.

That's all very vague. Which provisions are you talking about? Damages caps? The comp bar?

The damages cap for gross negligence claims are 2x economic damages + 750k. Should they be removed? If so, would you propose limiting plaintiff's attorneys' fees so that a "meaningful" amount actually goes to the plaintiff/their family?

And even if all restrictions on tort reform were removed, you'd see an explosion in the rates charged by insurance companies to businesses. I don't know what kind of impact that would have, but I don't see why that'd be good to grease the pockets of people like Thomas J. Henry or Tony Buzbee. Having dealt with them, they are evil people who treat the people and families you mention the exact same way an evil corporation would. They are just means to a payday for those attorneys. I don't see the benefit in making it easier for those people to make more money.

[RD2191]

Of the 21 polls (including CNN's) mentioned in the Daily Mail story, Trump won 17 of them, including:
Time: Trump 58 percent, Clinton 42 percent
CBS New York: Trump 24K votes, 17,600 votes
San Diego Tribune: Trump 66 percent, Clinton 34 percent
Slate: Trump 54 percent, Clinton 46 percent
Variety: Trump 51 percent, Clinton 48 percent
Fortune: Trump 51 percent, Clinton 49 percent
CNBC: Trump 51 percent, Clinton 49 percent

The CNN poll found that 62 percent of those surveyed by the left-leaning network thought Clinton won. Trump garnered 27 percent.

Online polls

[FuzzyLumpkins]

which one am i? i'm curious

Review the conversation and try again,

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Online polls

[vy65]

By robust tort law, I mean a tort law that isn't neutered by provisions that make it virtually impossible for injured people to actually recover meaningful damages from tortfeasors who actually commit injurious acts.

I'm immersed in personal injury litigation on an almost daily basis. I've seen what tort reform has done to families who've suffered grievous losses only to discover that the culprits in their devastation cannot be held responsible in damages (or in any other way, really) for those losses. Bad lawsuits should be sanctioned and bad plaintiff's lawyers should be punished (as should bad defense lawyers, for that matter). But to curtail broad swaths of liability because allowing it would be "bad for business" -- a refrain of conservative tort reformers on and off the bench -- is not optimal in my view, and the notion of an unprincipled person like Trump nominating pro business acolytes who think little of the suffering of injured people would be disastrous in my opinion.

And for the record, I'm not categorically opposed to giving victims of negligent/grossly negligent corporate practices meaningful compensation for the injuries. However, given how much abuse the legal system suffers from bad plaintiffs attorneys and/or bad plaintiffs makes me err on the side off stronger tort reform. I think this is a philosophic difference you and I won't see eye to eye on.

[boutons_deux]

Trash ed up, naturally, with his energy takes

Trump's answers on climate and energy ranged from simply wrong to strictly illegal

TRUMP: She talks about solar panels. We invested in a solar company, our country. That was a disaster. They lost plenty of money on that one.

In fact, 2010 was the start of an explosion in solar panel sales that’s seen the market grow at an astounding rate.

Growing 43 percent year over year, the U.S. saw 2,051 megawatts (MW) of solar photovoltaic (PV) installed in the second quarter of 2016. According to GTM Research and the Solar Energy Industries Association’s (SEIA) latest U.S. Solar Market Insight report, this marks the eleventh consecutive quarter in which more than a gigawatt (GW) of PV was installed.

By 2011, there were more people working in the solar industry than there were coal miners in the United States. That gap has continued to grow over the years. At this point, there are at least four times as many solar workers as coal miners, and while mining jobs continue to fall, solar now accounts for more than 1 percent of all new jobs.

While Trump is insisting that “our energy policies are a disaster,” the truth is that American energy is more abundant, cleaner, and cheaper than it has ever been. Under President Obama, the United States produced more of its own energy than at any time since 1971.

The worst thing was something Trump had said before, and it came as he wandered through Iraq.

TRUMP: Or, as I've been saying for a long time, and I think you'll agree, because I said it to you once, had we taken the oil -- and we should have taken the oil -- ISIS would not have been able to form either, because the oil was their primary source of income. And now they have the oil all over the place, including the oil -- a lot of the oil in Libya, which was another one of her disasters.

First, ISIS is not in control of any oil fields in Libya. ISIS-associated fighters have killed some guards at oil facilities, but they control none of their own. None. Not one. In 2015, ISIS captured the city of Sirte and an associated dam and power plant. Then ISIS lost its training center in Libya, was kicked out of a series of towns, and last month they lost Sirte.

But there’s a bigger problem with Trump’s statement than just inaccuracies on who controls what.

What Trump is arguing for here is a war crime. And it’s not the first time he has suggested it.

P.R. nightmare aside, there’s a very good reason the Bush and Obama administrations did not just take Iraq’s oil: doing so would have violated several treaties ratified by the Unites States and cons uted a war crime.

The U.S. may have kept the spoils of war “in the old days,” but not since 1907.

The Hague Conventions banned the seizure of enemy property except when absolutely necessary.

Article 23 (g) in particular states that it is “especially forbidden” to “destroy or seize the enemy’s property, unless such destruction or seizure be imperatively demanded by the necessities of war.”

Given the U.S. military’s extensive resources– and that Trump wanted to use the proceeds to pay widows– it’s hard to argue that seizing Iraqi oil would have been a military necessity.

That Donald Trump can suggest a war crime and it doesn’t even make the list of issues drawing media attention says something about the number of times Donald Trump simply failed in the first debate.

However, this is not an issue that can be allowed to sink, because—along with torturing and attacking terrorists’ families—Trump will come back to it again.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2016/0...28Daily+Kos%29