Polls: Clinton Wins Second Debate by Narrower Margin than First

[FearGod]

Many Muslims have their own laws for Muslims on US soil. If people disagree with this, they get called bigots and racists.

What if they kill the disbelievers? some Muslims believe that you're God's enemy, how you know what
kind of Muslims the refugees will be?

 

[Scuba Pete]

And how I was biased, I can't see where I was biased, would you pleaseeee explain to me to whom I was biased
and how your explanation of how the cause of the phobia proves that I was biased?

I tried but apparently you don't want to understand. None are so blind as those who will not see, do deaf as those who refuse to hear. I won't be a party to you justifying your bias via ignorance. You'll have to find another Huckleberry for that.

 

[Scuba Pete]

Why they were killed by the police?

Most of us would like the answer to that question as well. Not to justify the killings as I think you want to do, but to solve the problem of Police bias. Oh snap... you couldn't see bias if it slapped you in the face.

 

[Lighthouse]

What if they kill the disbelievers? some Muslims believe that you're God's enemy, how you know what
kind of Muslims the refugees will be?

That's a reasonable risk. I'm willing to let some in, mostly children. Most don't have any documentation, so it would be difficult. All it would take are a handful to cause chaos, recruit, etc. I have no control over the matter, so I'm not going to be extreme one way or the other or call anyone a bigot, racist, Trumpian, etc. to those who oppose it. If it happens, they are a human to me and if paths are crossed I'd be more than willing to help any way that I can. If it doesn't happen, they are still a human to me and I hope we at least step up our humanitarian aid on the outside.

 

[Scuba Pete]

Many Muslims have their own laws for Muslims on US soil. If people disagree with this, they get called bigots and racists.

I believe this to be melodramatic BS. I haven't see this confirmed anywhere in the US. Can you supply some news links where this is the case? First rule of Scuba applies: I won't be holding my breath.

 

[Altfish]

Why they were killed by the police?

If recent events have anything to go by...because of the colour of their skin.

 

[Underhill]

She was offering smiles, whereas he was very serious, president like her is a disaster for America and for the whole world,IMHO.

You mean he was very angry....

 

[FearGod]

If recent events have anything to go by...because of the colour of their skin.

And you're calling Trump as a racist.
That's what the previous administrations have planted and the police are it's fruits.

 

[FearGod]

You mean he was very angry....

I didn't hear him shouting and cursing at her.

 

[Scuba Pete]

And you're calling Trump as a racist.

Speaking out against racism doesn't make a person a racist. I am flummoxed that you don't get this.

 

[FearGod]

Speaking out against racism doesn't make a person a racist. I am flummoxed that you don't get this.

When the police kill the black then it's racism and they're the product of the previous administrations,
Trump is the reality of your society that you're a shamed of.

 

[Scuba Pete]

When the police kill the black then it's racism and they're the product of the previous administrations,

​

Negative. National politics do not have control over local police. The same hate and intolerance that gave us Trump as a nominee has also produced the aforementioned phenomenon.

 

[Underhill]

I didn't hear him shouting and cursing at her.

That is quite a high bar you set there. He didn't drool, didn't shout and didn't curse. Clearly he is presidential material.

The guy was obviously angry and working hard to (barely) control himself. He was also factually inaccurate or exaggerating almost everything he said.

Clinton got a few things wrong too. But the difference was night and day. Calm and collected vs angry and seething.

 

[Underhill]

Negative. National politics do not have control over local police. The same hate and intolerance that gave us Trump as a nominee has also produced the aforementioned phenomenon.

Agreed. This really isn't a political issue. I'm not even entirely convinced it's a race issue. But I do think it's an issue that we need to resolve as best we can (sadly it will never end completely).

 

[FearGod]

View attachment 14751​

Negative. National politics do not have control over local police. The same hate and intolerance that gave us Trump as a nominee has also produced the aforementioned phenomenon.

You aren't even frank with your own self, you only deny what the reality is.

 

[Acim]

You're kidding, right?

Nope, thanks for providing the transcript.

So, in all of that Islamaphobic drivel,

Please identify what you are calling Islamophobic in Trump's words. Your previous assertion was: "He actually answered with Islamaphobic comments!"

just WHERE is the answer?

The answer to the question posed to him is, as I see it, indirectly there. To be more clear, he did not directly answer the question asked to him. I see in Hillary's response, that is is barely addressed.

Again the question was:

with Islamophobia on the rise, how will you help people like me deal with the consequences of being labeled as a threat to the country after the election is over?

And where I observe Hillary addressing this specific question, when given opportunity is:

- I've met with a lot of them and I've heard how important it is for them to feel that they are wanted and included and part of our country, part of our homeland security, and that's what I want to see.
- So I want a country where citizens like you and your family are just as welcome as anyone else.

So, nothing specific from Hillary, but I do give her at least a bit of credit for directly addressing (not answering) the question asked.

He's asking Muslims, who fear for their lives, the lives of their compatriots and who suspect that they will not get due process to out other Muslims in a system HE has made intolerable with his Islamaphobia. You think that's an answer? Don't Trump me, bro. Give a real answer here: not a Trumpism.

My answer is above, but given your claims that you aren't backing up, thus far, I see it as Trump using audience member's question mentioning Islamophobia and chose to score political points among conservatives by speaking to the need for a leader to be willing to state the problem we are facing: an ideological battle/war with radical Islamic terrorists, and then notes what Hillary notes in her later response that "we have to be sure that Muslims come in and report when they see something going on, when they see hatred going on they have to report it."

I honestly do not see anything in Trump's words, which address this question, that perpetuate Islamophobia.

BTW, it's easy enough to look up the transcript from the debate. Don't be lazy.

I believe I was the first person in this thread to quote from the transcript. Seeing that you made a claim that so far has not been backed up: "He actually answered with Islamaphobic comments!" I am glad you provided that transcript rather than us take you anti-Trumpism word on it. The transcript shows that your claim is erroneous.

 

[Acim]

Watch it: your bias is showing. I bet you can't even see it which speaks volumes on volumes. Of course he and you don't see the answer. The problem with Islamaphobia in America is people like you don't even see it.

Please explain, apart from Trump's comments in the debate, how you identify Islamophobia and/or Islamophobic comments.

After that, I'd be real interested in you tying that answer to the words Trump used in this debate.

 

[Acim]

Most aren't. Consider the Orlando attack. Was that a terrorist? No, not at all. That was a terrorist wannabe.

??????

Wouldn't every terrorist be a "wannabe" until they engage in an action whereby they attack non-military targets?

It would be hard to claim he was really Muslim since he hadn't been to his temple in a long while.

It would also be a bit of Islamophobia to state that because he was a Muslim that is why the attack occurred. So, investigators look for a motive. And when "Mateen swore allegiance to the leader of the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL), Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, and said the shooting was "triggered" by the U.S. killing of Abu Waheeb in Iraq the previous month." - that would indicate that he aligned with radical Islamic jihadists to justify his attack.

What's in quotes above is what I got from Wikipedia. If anyone reading this thinks Wikipedia is not a good source for making this claim, let me know and I'll go back that up outside of Wikipedia.

But, that doesn't stop the Donalds, er Islamaphobes, from decrying all Muslims as being dangerous. It's not a slippery slope, but a bigoted one.

And yet, in the recent debate the Donald didn't say all Muslims are dangerous, so no Islamophobia from him stated there.

 

[metis]

I'm addressing your previous claim and you're onto new claim "Donald was not at all specific as to what would replace ACA." I provided information from what both said to back my position which is on that item, Donald provide more specifics than Hillary. None provided much, or more like very little.



So, keep some of the good provisions, and change the bad stuff. That can occur upon repeal and replace. Seems hard to imagine that "replace and replace" would not take into consideration something that pretty much all consumers like (i.e. can't deny coverage based on pre-existing condition).



I'm going to need you to back that up with information from the transcripts. I doubt it is most other areas, but don't deny it is some other areas. On this item regarding ACA, in the area where this question was asked and addressed, I would say clearly Trump provided more specifics than Hillary and am acknowledging both provided oh so little.

I predict on most of the things Hillary cited specifics it is the kind of stuff Obama would've said in 2007 on the same issue. As in, sounds nice during campaign time, but chances are - it ain't gonna happen, under Hillary's watch.

Let me just say that we don't at all agree about Trump's supposed specifics, but I do agree with you that Hillary hasn't given any either on exactly how costs could be lowered. Also, over and over again the moderators had to try and get Trump to get into specifics, but all he did most of the time was to either get into general platitudes or he would switch to a different topic.

Finally, do I believe for one minute that these Republicans could agree on some sort of plan for universal health-care coverage? Notta chance.

 

[Scuba Pete]

Wouldn't every terrorist be a "wannabe" until they engage in an action whereby they attack non-military targets?

His mental health was in question. The more you make this out to be "Us against the Muslims" the more you encourage any disturbed person with a tenuous connection with Muslims to align with them to justify their horrible actions. Take out the referent to Muslims and you defang a lot of the "glory" associated with this kind of action.

And yet, in the recent debate the Donald didn't say all Muslims are dangerous, so no Islamophobia from him stated there.

Sure he did. His laser focus on pushing his inflammatory rhetoric of "Radical Islamic Terrorism" implicates all of Islam. Why didn't we refer to Radical Christian Terrorism in regards to the bombings of Planned Parenthood? Call it what it is: terrorism. If you want to add a modifier, call it cowardly. Just don't legitimize it by attaching it to a religion.