Clinton vs Trump: Debate 3

Written By: - Date published: 8:46 am, October 20th, 2016 - 191 comments
Categories: elections, Hillary Clinton, Politics, us politics - Tags: ,

The final Presidential debate kicks off at 2PM NZ time, live from Las Vegas.

The format is similar to the first debate, with pre-set topics. There will be six 15-minute segments.  Moderator Chris Wallace, from Fox News, will open each segment with a question, after which each candidate will have two minutes to respond.

The topics are:

  • Debt and entitlements
  • Immigration
  • The economy
  • Supreme Court
  • Foreign hot spots
  • Fitness to be president

Going into the debate, the polls are showing a huge gap between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump. This is hardly surprising given the torrid ten days Trump has endured since his uncensored views on women came to light. In the last two days, Trump appears to have conceded he will not win the Presidency, blaming his upcoming defeat on vote rigging, the media and the Republican Party.

This debate is probably going to be the final nail in the coffin for the Trump campaign, but in a sense, there is more pressure on Hillary Clinton. The election is hers to lose, so she will need to make sure she doesn’t stumble in the 90 minutes. Quite literally so when the debate swings to the final topic, fitness to be President.

It’s hard to know what Trump can do to turn things around, but it’s curious that he has invited Barack Obama’s half brother Malik to attend. If he thinks having a crack at Obama is going to change things, he hasn’t learned a jot from his failed attacks on Bill Clinton. More pointedly, Trump has Patricia Smith on his guest list. She’s the mother of Sean Smith, who died in Benghazi while Hillary Clinton was secretary of state.

Clinton has invited Hewlett Packard CEO Meg Whitman, a Republican who once ran for governor of California but who  has endorsed the Democratic candidate. Clinton has also invited Mark Cuban, who was once considered as a potential running mate for the Donald.

Today’s debate is live on TVNZ’s Duke channel at 2 PM and they will be streaming it via their website, here.

The Guardian are running live updates all day, here.

 

Last word to Aziz Ansari, who has put out the most honest get out the vote video ever:

 

191 comments on “Clinton vs Trump: Debate 3 ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. adam 1
    20 October 2016 at 9:01 am

    Penn Jillette, no friend of the left..

  2. Sanctuary 2
    20 October 2016 at 9:46 am

    Given the size of Clinton’s lead and that (thank God!) it is less than three weeks to polling day, the tactics will be predictable. Clinton has got it in the bag now, so she will strive to keep a small target, in order not to create controversy, hope trump goes off the deep end on live TV and to keep the focus on Trump’s antics. Trump’s only hope now is be as ugly as possible, in order to suppress turn out by frightening voters/turning them off. The lower the turn out the more he (and the GOP) can claim Clinton has a weak mandate, it was rigged, etc etc.

    The only thing to watch for is a Clinton mistake and/or a Trump explosion.

  3. Andre 3
    20 October 2016 at 9:59 am

    Trump’s guest list for the debate, supposedly.

    http://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/the-clintonites-rat-s-ass

  4. Groundhog 4
    20 October 2016 at 10:44 am

    “Fitness to be President”??? Is there going to be a third candidate I’m not aware of at the debate?

    • Pasupial 4.1
      20 October 2016 at 12:09 pm

      Jill Stein answered the questions in her own way in a different studio the day after last time on Democracy Now. Although she does seem a bit off the deep end when it comes to operating at this level, she also seems a lot less unfit than either of the main contenders to be human, let alone President.

      http://www.democracynow.org/2016/10/10/expanding_the_debate_jill_stein_debates

      It looks like they’ll be doing similar again this time (maybe Johnson or even McMullin will turn up as well):

      on Wednesday from 8 to 11:30 p.m. ET. We will air the full Donald Trump-Hillary Clinton debate and host pre- and post-debate roundtable discussions. On Thursday, October 20, we’ll broadcast a 2-hour Expanding the Debate special where Democracy Now! will break the sound barrier by expanding the debate—including the issues and voices that you won’t hear anywhere else.

      • Groundhog 4.1.1
        20 October 2016 at 12:49 pm

        Trump is a perverted egomaniac. Clinton is a corrupt liar. Both are incompetent. Whatever her politics, how could Stein be worse?

        • red-blooded 4.1.1.1
          20 October 2016 at 6:45 pm

          She can be (& is) totally inexperienced as a politician. That alone makes her unfit to be president.

          • rhinocrates 4.1.1.1.1
            20 October 2016 at 6:51 pm

            John Oliver on third party candidates:

            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LmsIlLPK4ug

            Longish, but he starts on Stein about 4 minutes in. Beyond the mockery, he pins her on her ignorance of how government and the Federal Reserve actually work.

          • Groundhog 4.1.1.1.2
            20 October 2016 at 6:52 pm

            Is someone who stored highly sensitive emails on a home computer with virtually zero security, deleted said emails, and then repeatedly lied about it, fit to be President? No. But she’s being protected by a complicit media (with the notable exception of Fox News), who refuse to even refer to the latest Wikileaks revelations about her dishonesty.

  5. Ad 5
    20 October 2016 at 10:56 am

    And the Senate while you’re at it thanks Hillary!

  6. Ad 6
    20 October 2016 at 11:53 am

    U.S. Senate seats held by Republicans, and now in play:

    – New Hampshire
    – Pennsylvania
    – Indiana
    – Missouri
    – Wisconsin
    – Illinois
    – North Carolina

    Trump has never done anything good in his life, but he might, just by accident, do the USA a favour in helping tilt the Senate majority to the Democrats.

    • Colonial Viper 6.1
      20 October 2016 at 11:58 am

      Rudy Guliani said that Trump gave generously to individual victims of 9/11 through the City of New York and never wanted to be identified when he did so.

      • fender 6.1.1
        20 October 2016 at 12:15 pm

        Trump should be paying you too 😀

        • Colonial Viper 6.1.1.1
          20 October 2016 at 12:18 pm

          Well, thanks, but I am not a victim of ‘Islamic extremist terrorism’ like the people who survived 9/11 😛

          • McFlock 6.1.1.1.1
            20 October 2016 at 2:23 pm

            I thought they were victims of the US “Deep state” that lined the towers with nanothermite?

      • Pasupial 6.1.2
        20 October 2016 at 12:24 pm

        What? Is; “Rudy Guliani said”, your standard of truth now CV?

        On Oct. 10, 2001, Trump was thanked for a $10,000 donation by Howard Stern, who was directing people to donate to New York City Public/Private Initiatives Inc… Trump did not deny that he made the pledge…

        But City Comptroller Scott Stringer’s office said it has no record of such a donation from Trump, at least not in the months immediately following the attacks. The comptroller’s office reviewed previously sealed records of the Twin Towers Fund and New York City Public/Private Initiatives Inc. and found no indication Trump or his charity made contributions,..

        the Trump campaign did not respond to multiple requests for more information bearing out his claims of charitable donations to 9/11-related causes… The Daily News reports the only major recorded donation to 9/11 causes that Trump has made was $100,000 given by his foundation to the 9/11 Museum in April 2016, after he entered the presidential race.

        http://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/local/Donald-Trump-Claims-Donations-911-Charities-Controller-Audit-397031461.html

        Rudy Giuliani says a lot of things about Trump, but how does he act?

      • joe90 6.1.3
        20 October 2016 at 12:38 pm

        Rudy Guliani said that Trump gave generously to individual victims of 9/11 through the City of New York and never wanted to be identified when he did so.

        So, the narcissist reneged on his own promises but Rudy expects us to believe he’s actually a secret fucking santa.
        /

        The New York City Comptroller’s Office has found no evidence that Donald Trump donated to 9/11 charities in the months after the attacks, the agency said.

        Trump had promised weeks after the 2001 attack to donate $10,000 to the Twin Towers Fund as part of a charity effort by “The Howard Stern Show.”

        “My office has reviewed the donations made in the nearly 12 months following the attacks – and we didn’t find evidence that he contributed a single cent to the victims, our first responders, and to our city through the Twin Towers Fund,” New York City Comptroller Scott Stringer, a Democrat, said in a statement to ABC News today.

        “In the wake of 9/11, New Yorkers came together, healed, and rebuilt. If Donald Trump claimed to donate and didn’t, if he claimed to support New Yorkers in a time of crisis and refused, then that would be just plain wrong.”

        http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/nyc-audit-finds-donald-trump-donations-911-months/story?id=42801444

    • joe90 6.2
      20 October 2016 at 12:13 pm

      Money troubles.

      Top Republicans still believe they can retain control of the House of Representatives next year, but admit that Donald Trump’s campaign is “adding a layer of uncertainty” in the closing weeks of the election season.

      A memo sent Wednesday to Republican lawmakers from the House GOP campaign arm also warns that a growing fundraising gap with House Democrats “is unsustainable” and could lead to “substantial losses.

      https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2016/10/19/house-gop-leaders-warn-fundraising-gap-with-democrats-could-lead-to-substantial-losses/

  7. Robert Glennie 7
    20 October 2016 at 12:00 pm

    Neither are fit to be President. And even if U.S. law did allow a third term Obama Presidency, I doubt he would win – and if I was voting, I wouldn’t want him there anyway.

    Obama inherited a mess. Tried to sort said mess out and just made it worse. Thus his successor inherits an even bigger mess. But there are a couple of things the next President could do quite easily:

    1) Cut the U.S. Government funding and arming of Saudi Arabia and Turkey
    2) End the drugs war – it’s failed miserably and is like a black hole in terms of funding and expecting something good to grow out of it
    3) Stop using drones unless target is obviously military or hostile – drone warfare is turning a lot of innocent families and communities against America in countries with internal problems

    • dukeofurl 7.1
      20 October 2016 at 12:37 pm

      About to launch a major attack on a city of 1 million people in Mosul.

      Its funny how when the Syrian government does the same in Aleppo with Russian help its aclled a war crime.

      When the same happens in Iraq, its not ‘their fault civilians are being used as human shields”
      “The bloodbath begins: Mustard gas. Truck bombs. Trenches full of oil. And a million civilians being used as human shields. How ISIS will unleash hell in defence of their last Iraqi stronghold”
      http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3853304/The-bloodbath-begins-Mustard-gas-Truck-bombs-Trenches-oil-million-civilians-used-human-shields-ISIS-unleash-hell-defence-Iraqi-stronghold.html

      • Cemetery Jones 7.1.1
        20 October 2016 at 5:27 pm

        This Orwellian take on Syria and Iraq came as no surprise. I guess at least it’s good practice for kickoff, which will occur when Hillary’s no fly zone to protect militant Sunni headchoppers causes WW3.

    • gnomic 7.2
      23 October 2016 at 2:19 am

      The presidency is a farce.

      As things stand nobody with 2/10 of a clue could be elected. If by some strange chance somebody with a brain was elected they would not live long.

      O’Bomber the extra-judicial assassin may have wanted to do the right thing. It seems likely the deep state probably instructed him what to do if he wanted his family to live.

      But at least Barack didn’t bomb bomb bomb Iran unlike the goal of another American political grotesque.

      But hey hey hey, maybe we can rely on Billary or the Trumpstoid to attack Persia.

  8. mary_a 8
    20 October 2016 at 12:27 pm

    Not much choice here. Both candidates are weighed down with some unsavoury heavy baggage.

    Bernie Sanders was the best. Pity the Democrats turned their backs on him, in favour of Hillary Clinton. Given the opportunity, Sanders might have given Trump a good run for his money, without being personal or vicious. Sanders could have won the presidency hands down, given Trump’s unscrupulous, demeaning behaviour he’s been displaying.

    Trump would have had to dig deep to find any dirt on Bernie and then if in the unlikely event there was something, I doubt it would have even been enough to scratch him. Bernie by simply being Bernie, would have seen the end of Trump.

    America, what have you done?

    • dukeofurl 8.1
      20 October 2016 at 12:46 pm

      Sanders was not really capable of being the democratic candidate. His only success was as the ‘anti Hillary’ candidate. The policies he promoted, while run of the mill here, were barely understood by the democratic people who supported him.

      Its part of the folk notion that voters carefully look at candidates stands on vary issues
      http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/23/opinion/campaign-stops/do-sanders-supporters-favor-his-policies.html
      “Decades of social-scientific evidence show that voting behavior is primarily a product of inherited partisan loyalties, social identities and symbolic attachments. Over time, engaged citizens may construct policy preferences and ideologies that rationalize their choices, but those issues are seldom fundamental.”

      “Exit polls conducted in two dozen primary and caucus states from early February through the end of April reveal only modest evidence of ideological structure in Democratic voting patterns, but ample evidence of the importance of group loyalties.

      ” Mr. Sanders’s support is concentrated not among liberal ideologues but among disaffected white men.

      Sanders is merely the Democratic Trump with a very narrow appeal to much the same group. Women, minorities saw Clinton as better fit to their allegiances.

      • Siobhan 8.1.1
        20 October 2016 at 2:19 pm

        “The policies he promoted, while run of the mill here, were barely understood by the democratic people who supported him.” Bold words.
        You have a source/credible study for saying that Bernie supporters are particularly clueless??
        Maybe while you are at it a survey that illustrates how deeply Hillary supporters understand her track record, beyond their usual claim that its “complicated”.

    • save nz 8.2
      20 October 2016 at 4:32 pm

      +1 Mary_a – what a pity they don’t have Sander’s to turn around America and bring some sort of decency and respect for them back and a more peaceful world. I guess US voters can still vote Jill Stein, if they don’t believe in either Clinton or Trump, rather than not voting.

  9. Lara 9
    20 October 2016 at 12:40 pm

    With two very horrible candidates I am bemused why so many Americans just switch off and don’t vote.

    There are alternatives.

    Jill Stein?

    It’s only a two party race because most people think it’s a two party race. And because the media reinforce that view.

    The reality is there are other choices. And if Americans were truly disgusted with both Trump and Clinton, and chose to exercise that democracy they so like to say they have, then they’d bloody well get out and vote for a third party.

    If that happened, it might be just possible that the third party could win.

    But it won’t. Which leaves me with the conclusion that Americans are easily brainwashed, their system of democracy is crap, and they deserve what they get.

    Harsh, but that’s my opinion.

    • Stephanie Rodgers 9.1
      20 October 2016 at 12:44 pm

      It’s a two party race because the system is designed as a two party race. Without major electoral reform, a third party has absolutely no shot and it’s irresponsible to tell people otherwise.

      I’m not saying people must vote for either of the dominant two parties – but if they’re going to protest vote for a third-party candidate, or not vote at all, they have to be realistic about their prospects.

  10. Sable 10
    20 October 2016 at 1:27 pm

    I think Julian Assange said everything that need be said about the Clinton/Trump debacle.

    Jill Stein is not allowed to debate, can’t imagine why……? So much for US democracy…….

    • joe90 10.1
      20 October 2016 at 2:15 pm

      They didn’t make the cut

      ‘Pursuant to the criteria, which were publicly announced on October 29, 2015, those candidates qualify for debate participation who: (1) are constitutionally eligible to hold the office of President of the United States; (2) have achieved ballot access in a sufficient number of states to win a theoretical Electoral College majority in the general election; and (3) have demonstrated a level of support of at least 15 percent of the national electorate, as determined by five selected national public opinion polling organizations, using the average of those organizations’ most recent publicly-reported results

      […]

      With the assistance of Dr. Newport, the Board determined that the polling averages called for in the third criterion are as follows: Hillary Clinton (43%), Donald Trump (40.4%), Gary Johnson (8.4%) and Jill Stein (3.2%). Accordingly, Hillary Clinton and her running mate, Tim Kaine, and Donald Trump and his running mate, Mike Pence, qualify to participate in the September 26 presidential debate and the October 4 vice-presidential debate, respectively. No other candidates satisfied the criteria for inclusion in the September 26 and October 4 debates. The criteria will be reapplied to all candidates in advance of the second and third presidential debates.

      http://www.debates.org/index.php?mact=News,cntnt01,detail,0&cntnt01articleid=65&cntnt01origid=27&cntnt01detailtemplate=newspage&cntnt01returnid=80

  11. roy cartland 11
    20 October 2016 at 2:12 pm

    TRUMP:
    re 2nd amendment: ”…absolute siege if my opponent should win…”

    holy shit

  12. Pasupial 12
    20 October 2016 at 2:14 pm

    Talking about gun violence and toddlers:

  13. Pasupial 13
    20 October 2016 at 2:33 pm

    “No Puppet! No Puppet!
    You the Puppet!”

    Touched a nerve there.

    [edit reference from the Guardian feed:]

    Clinton with a whopper line: “That’s because he’d rather have a puppet as president of the United States.”

    Trump: “no Puppet! You’re the puppet.”

    Clinton hammers him. She accuses Trump of accepting Putin’s help.

    https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/live/2016/oct/19/donald-trump-hillary-clinton-third-presidential-debate-live

  14. roy cartland 14
    20 October 2016 at 2:33 pm

    so far it’s russia vs mexico ?!?!?!!

  15. Sanctuary 15
    20 October 2016 at 2:33 pm

    Clinton killed him.

    • AmaKiwi 15.1
      20 October 2016 at 4:39 pm

      @ Sanctuary, I agree.

      He could not handle a genuine “debate” format. He could not answer direct questions with facts or figures. He had to fall back on his worn out campaign slogans: “They are a disaster.” “I am tremendous.” Constant verbal bullying (interruptions).

      I’ve seen all three debates. This was his worst.

  16. Anne 16
    20 October 2016 at 2:45 pm

    Yep everybodies! Trump’s gonna make America’s allies pay up. He’s gonna ask us nicely but we’re still gonna pay up. Not sure quite what or why we’re gonna pay up but we are….

  17. joe90 17
    20 October 2016 at 2:57 pm

    ….Putin, never met the man. Never talked to him….

    Speaking at the National Press Club in Washington, D.C., Trump told reporters he spoke “indirectly and directly” with Putin during a recent Moscow visit for the Miss Universe pageant.

    http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/donald-trump-bragged-2014-meeting-putin-article-1.2734098

  18. rhinocrates 18
    20 October 2016 at 3:12 pm

    Seth Masket at Fivethirtyeight:

    So a major-party presidential nominee just refused, at a presidential debate, to say he would accept the outcome of the presidential election. Now, there’s all sorts of reasons why this is dangerous and disqualifying talk. But basically, Trump’s gonna say what Trump’s gonna say. The real test will be, assuming he loses, for other Republicans to reject Trump’s claims.

  19. Takere 19
    20 October 2016 at 3:22 pm

    The US needed Bernie. Instead. They’re going to get one of these idiots. I hope they get Trump. No TPPA, no War with Russia and he’ll stay at home to learn to play the banjo.

  20. Pasupial 20
    20 October 2016 at 3:23 pm

    She keeps saying that they; “brought Bin Laden to justice” (or that she was in the room when…). Didn’t they conduct an extrajudicial killing in another country that they were not at war with (and whose government was not informed beforehand)? Where was the trial? Where was the evidence?

    Also; that statement of Iran and Russia causing the Syrian civil war?

    Yet somehow Trump manages to be worse.

  21. tinfoilhat 21
    20 October 2016 at 3:25 pm

    Good Lord they’re awful, I feel so sorry for the US voters.

    • miravox 21.1
      20 October 2016 at 3:41 pm

      Despite agreeing or not with policy, one of them is clearly more presidential that the other.

      • Macro 21.1.1
        20 October 2016 at 3:45 pm

        Exactly. And she may be awful but at least she knows what the job entails.

        • tinfoilhat 21.1.1.1
          20 October 2016 at 3:51 pm

          Oh Yes one is definitely less awful than the other, I don’t think I’ve ever been so thankful for the politicians we have in NZ.

          • wek 21.1.1.1.1
            20 October 2016 at 4:57 pm

            Me too but it’s probably an illusion. Nact are slowly not but surely stripping out democracy and dismantling the social democratic state. It looks better than the US but I think that’s because we’re happy with a smile and a wave and a she’ll be right. In other words you don’t need a fascist state in NZ, we just let them get on with it.

      • Siobhan 21.1.2
        20 October 2016 at 5:13 pm

        I guess Hillary has a sort of a Frank Underwood vibe. Minus the sex appeal.

  22. joe90 22
    20 October 2016 at 3:37 pm

    Former U.S. Ambassador to Russia –

    Trump calls the New START Treaty the "start up" ! OMG. He knows nothing about nuclear weapons & policy.— Michael McFaul (@McFaul) October 20, 2016

  23. Pasupial 23
    20 October 2016 at 3:38 pm

    This interjection! Did he not think he came across as enough of an arsehole yet?:

    Clinton: We need to add to the social security trust fund by raising taxes on the wealthy. We want to…

    Trump interrupts her: “Such a nasty woman.”

    Clinton: “I will not cut benefits I want to enhance benefits…

    https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/live/2016/oct/19/donald-trump-hillary-clinton-third-presidential-debate-live?page=with:block-58082c5fe4b055209adaf603#block-58082c5fe4b055209adaf603

    • roy cartland 23.1
      20 October 2016 at 3:45 pm

      Wasn’t that interjection more about how she made the little jibe about T not paying taxes?

      Meh, even so your comment still stands.

      • AmaKiwi 23.1.1
        20 October 2016 at 8:22 pm

        @ roy cartland

        “Wasn’t that interjection more about how she made the little jibe about T not paying taxes?”

        No. The interjection was about POWER.

        Rape and sexual abuse are NOT about sexual gratification. They are expressions of rage and wanting to dominate. Ask woman. All men need to understand this.

    • Macro 23.2
      20 October 2016 at 3:46 pm

      But she is nasty! She is going to make him pay some taxes!

      • Siobhan 23.2.1
        20 October 2016 at 4:24 pm

        The Government Hillary has been part of has never made him pay taxes before…so why would they do so now??

        • Macro 23.2.1.1
          20 October 2016 at 4:35 pm

          Because one of her policies is to increase taxes on the wealthy this is why he calls her “such a nasty woman!”
          https://twitter.com/CNN/status/788933798079627265

          • Siobhan 23.2.1.1.1
            20 October 2016 at 4:51 pm

            Well, yes Macro, but you know, what are loop holes and tax havens for??
            If I was Trump I’d have a little more faith in Hillarys supporters on Wall Street not cutting their own throats by backing a candidate with cast iron tax increases on the table.
            Hell, if that was going to happen they might as well have backed The Bernie and started handing out ‘free stuff’ to the ‘kids in their folks basements’..

        • joe90 23.2.1.2
          20 October 2016 at 4:39 pm

          The Government Hillary has been part of has never made him pay taxes before

          I wasn’t aware first ladies or secretaries of state had any say in tax legislation or that pushing through tax reforms from the opposition benches is a doddle.

          http://www.ontheissues.org/Senate/Hillary_Clinton.htm

          • Colonial Viper 23.2.1.2.1
            20 October 2016 at 6:22 pm

            The Clintons and their big money donors use exactly the same tax write offs available in law as Trump’s companies do. They’re such hypocrites.

            [No they don’t. Different parts of the US tax code as has previously been pointed out.

            CV, you were asked to substantiate some other bit of bullshit earlier today and you ignored the request. The policy around responding to requests for cites was pointed out to you as was the section covering trolling. However, you seem relentlessly intent on posting provocative bullshit as often as possible, presumably to troll and start flame wars.

            You posted earlier today that Hitler made Germany great again, which is either a sad admission of how far you’ve fallen or the most epic bit of trolling seen here at TS for yonks. Either way, it’s offensive, deliberately provocative and not conducive to civilised discourse.

            Trolling, ignoring moderation, starting flame wars, wasting mod time. Lets call it a week. Come back next Friday. TRP]

            • AmaKiwi 23.2.1.2.1.1
              20 October 2016 at 8:30 pm

              On CV’s ban for one week.

              By then Trump will probably have said all Chinese-Americans should be deported.

              [too personal. Please don’t – weka]

            • RedLogix 23.2.1.2.1.2
              20 October 2016 at 9:36 pm

              @TRP

              You should read your history a bit. You are making the usual mistake, one I was being quite explicit about, is that because Hitler has been turned into the most evil man of all human history, we struggle to see him through the eyes of people living in the 1930’s.

              It’s a simple and demonstrable fact that from the time of the Nazi election to power in 1933 through till at least the start of WW2 six years later, they led a remarkable resurgence of the German economy. It is entirely reasonable to say that for a short period (which is what CV did say) the Nazi’s did make ‘Germany great again’.

              It is largely with hindsight that we read the warning signs, the increasing propaganda and persecution of a wide range of non-Aryans. The Untermensch concept included Jews, Roma and Sinti (Gypsies), and Slavic peoples such as Poles, Serbs, and Russians and quite a surprising range of religious groups such as the Baha’is. Regardless these deeply ambiguous undercurrents, Hitler’s government was widely admired and regarded as remarkably successful in that pre-war period.

              Despite the modern layers we put on the 1936 Olympics most people, most German’s especially, thought the event a great success. A very large fraction of the German people were highly attracted to the socially coherent, uplifting Nazi rallies and movements that gave people a reconstructed sense national and cultural identity.

              That all this had a very, very dark side only became undeniably apparent later.

              • weka …
                20 October 2016 at 10:00 pm

                I think the problem there is that it’s not really possible to separate out the German economy from that time with what happened later in the Holocaust. They’re part of the same thing, so saying that Hitler made Germany great for a short period of time is like saying that paving the road to the Holocaust was a good thing.

                Irrespective of whether a large number of people at the time thought it was all good, it’s what people say about it now that matters in this thread. I think it’s possible to talk about the dynamics of that time without praising Hitler. Likewise it’s possible to talk about the disenfranchised in the US without promoting a sexual predator to be the most powerful position in the country. There’s a line, and it’s been stepped over too many times lately. The Hitler comment needs to be seen in that context.

                “That all this had a very, very dark side only became undeniably apparent later.”

                We won’t have that excuse this time

                (and assuming that what you say is true. I find it hard to believe that there weren’t people at the time who were concerned).

                • RedLogix …
                  20 October 2016 at 10:16 pm

                  I find it hard to believe that there weren’t people at the time who were concerned

                  Absolutely there were. But again it’s only with hindsight that we tend to assume they were a majority. It would be fair to say Hitler was a controversial figure, but in that period condemnation was far from universal.

                  And indeed if the Nazi’s had constrained themselves to occupying Poland and Austria, and implemented Hitler’s ‘first solution’ of expelling the Jews, European history might have been quite different.

                  I think it’s possible to talk about the dynamics of that time without praising Hitler.

                  Agreed totally. The challenge comes when people read something about the Nazi’s without the usual prerogative qualifications, as being equal to ‘praising Hitler’.

                  • weka …
                    20 October 2016 at 10:40 pm

                    “The challenge comes when people read something about the Nazi’s without the usual prerogative qualifications, as being equal to ‘praising Hitler’.”

                    I suppose that’s the risk when someone spends half a year promoting a real life, in the now, proto-fascist.

                    • RedLogix …
                      20 October 2016 at 11:07 pm

                      True. But again we can only judge Trump by what we know about him now; just as people in the 1930’s could only judge Hitler by what they knew then.

                      Of course Hitler turned out an absolute catastrophe, and while there is a good case that Trump shares a common ‘proto-fascist’ pattern with Hitler … this does not prove history will repeat itself. It gives us strong grounds for concern, but then again if I’m honest with myself lots of things I’ve worried about in life never turned out the way I feared.

                      The slow American slide into fascism is analogous to a warming climate. We can know quite a lot about this larger pattern with some considerable certainty. But whether or not Donald Trump proves to be a “Hitler-storm” event within that pattern is a far more difficult argument.

                      And for that reason, while I’m now guilty of having said a fair amount about it, I’m still wary of making the Trump/Hitler comparison. It draws in far too many weak assumptions, emotive baggage and silly speculations.

                      In general the best guide to how someone will behave in future is to look at their past behaviour. And on that basis neither Trump nor Clinton give much grounds for optimism.

                    • joe90 …
                      20 October 2016 at 11:40 pm

                      But again we can only judge Trump by what we know about him now; just as people in the 1930’s could only judge Hitler by what they knew then.

                      Those who knew what was going on in mid 1930’s Germany were largely ignored.

                      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Dodd_(ambassador)

                    • weka …
                      21 October 2016 at 12:10 am

                      @Red. I’m not saying Trump is a Hitler-storm. I’m saying he is already doing sufficiently bad things that if you bring up Hitler in the context of having promoted Trump for 6 months you can expect a bunch of people to go wtf?

              • Chris …
                21 October 2016 at 11:40 pm

                It really is quite weird that people cannot understand this. CV hasn’t just plucked this out of his head. It’s documented all over the place by stacks of historians everywhere. CV’s ban is ridiculous. Banned, klammed, mlanned. Free and open dialogue. What a fucking joke.

            • Chooky 23.2.1.2.1.3
              20 October 2016 at 10:18 pm

              @ TRP…ok well I am off too in support of CV

              …btw the standard of debate on The Standard is pretty pathetic , bullying and abusive towards CV

              (incidentally I would be interested if CV were to set up his own blog site….hint hint CV….I will be back next Friday maybe ….and watching out for you)

            • In Vino 23.2.1.2.1.4
              20 October 2016 at 10:25 pm

              TRP – he said Hitler BRIEFLY made Germany great again. I suggest you go look at a map of who held what in Europe in 1942, and see if CV was right.

              There is nothing offensive about this, except in your eyes for some obscure reason. CV did not directly praise Hitler – yet you leap eagerly to the conclusion that he did so.

              An impartial moderator should be impartial. You appear to have lost the ability to be dispassionate.

              [CV didn’t get banned for a single instance. It was multiple issues, and he had already been warned about them. That is clear in the moderator’s note, please reread it – weka]

              • In Vino …
                20 October 2016 at 11:00 pm

                Sorry Weka, but much of the thread has been removed, and in the note you refer me to, which, conveniently, is the only one left on the thread,
                TRP still makes this unjustified assertion:

                “You posted earlier today that Hitler made Germany great again, which is either a sad admission of how far you’ve fallen or the most epic bit of trolling seen here at TS for yonks. Either way, it’s offensive, deliberately provocative and not conducive to civilised discourse.”

                CV’s word ‘briefly’ is omitted. I hold that entire assertion in contempt, regardless of whether it has been uttered by a moderator.

                • weka …
                  21 October 2016 at 12:49 am

                  I’m not sure if anything has been removed. Most of the moderation before the ban happened in the Daily US discussion thread.

                  https://thestandard.org.nz/the-us-election-daily-discussion-post-2/

                  If you can be more specific about deletions please do so.

                  Irrespective of what one might think about TRP’s moderation style (and I have my own reservations), CV has been causing a problem, and IMO it was only a matter of time until he got a ban. He’s had one before for similar behaviour (in the winter?). I agree the omission of the word ‘briefly’ misrepresents what CV said and was a mistake for the moderator to say that. However even if a moderator got that one paragraph wrong, there are still enough other reasons to issue a ban.

                  Commenters pointing out mistakes is useful IMO, thanks for that. I disagree with your assessment of the overall issue with CV. As bad as his politics are to many, it’s his behaviour that has copped him the ban (IMO).

                  • In Vino …
                    21 October 2016 at 9:21 pm

                    Thanks Weka – I will bow to your greater knowledge of what has gone before. But I still see no reason for anyone to describe CV as right wing: every social comment I have seen him make has been left-wing. But if ever he refers to a right-wing figure in making an argument, a bunch of vindictive people immediately accuse him of being a supporter of that right-winger. All non sequiturs to my mind..

                    • weka …
                      21 October 2016 at 11:04 pm

                      I don’t see CV as classic RW myself, and I agree that some people call him RW as a wind up (TRP included). Which is unfortunate because then the whole issue becomes about where CV is on the spectrum rather than the problems with his behaviour and politics.

                      But he definitely has views that don’t sit easily within the left. Maybe we should start being more specific e.g. if I see him saying something RW or alt-right or whatever, I will name it. Then I think we can start sorting out what is genuine analysis from what is reaction or abuse.

                    • Chris …
                      21 October 2016 at 11:22 pm

                      I cannot see how CV should be banned. Almost every single comment I’ve seen that’s critical of what CV says is based on a complete misunderstanding of where he’s coming from. All the ridiculous importance placed on crap about him declaring he’s “not left wing” so that must mean he’s “right wing” is just shite. Part of me is totally surprised there are people here that really believe that, but then I’m reminded of what this site is really about so all of a sudden I can make sense of it. I am truly appreciative of that reminder, so here’s a big shout out to the moderator who pulled CV’s pin. Again, thank you. Order is restored.

            • Nic the NZer 23.2.1.2.1.5
              21 October 2016 at 7:15 pm

              Ahh, but who will moderate the moderators? That would be TRP.

    • joe90 23.3
      20 October 2016 at 4:18 pm

      Picture tells the story.

      .@realDonaldTrump dominated the three #debates in interruptions, per @fivethirtyeight https://t.co/25JBIWvwZq pic.twitter.com/DyBI7rQQuj— ABC News Politics (@ABCPolitics) October 20, 2016

      https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CvLciRGWYAAWMq8.jpg

  24. North 24
    20 October 2016 at 3:59 pm

    Number two idiocy…….”Nasty woman…….”. Number one idiocy……. ‘Accept the outcome?……..I’ll please myself.’ Fits the presidency?………yeah, like his spoilt child baby booties fit my 45 centimetre feet.

  25. ianmac 25
    20 October 2016 at 4:14 pm

    Clever Clinton. When the issue of Wikileaks emails comes up, she gets stuck into the Russians and the smoke obscures the email issue.
    So Like Key with Dirty Tricks, the smoke was that the material had been “stolen.” Avoidance?

    • miravox 25.1
      20 October 2016 at 4:40 pm

      Clever all right. Taking personality and policy out of it, that was a job well done. Clinton was well prepared, gave Trump practically nothing and managed to leave him rant on way further that he should have.

  26. Manuka AOR 26
    20 October 2016 at 4:36 pm

    About 20 different people appraise the debate on this page of the NYT: http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/projects/cp/opinion/clinton-trump-third-debate-election-2016

    It is interesting to see different responses to the debate, by gender. Those damning Hillary, as in “They’re both bad”, are usually male.

  27. Sabine 27
    20 October 2016 at 4:51 pm

    if one takes aside all the bickering, the verbal put downs, the sheer stupidity and lazyness of the journalists, the hate, at the end of the day for a lot of women this will be the reason to vote.

    Roe vs Wade 1973, access to safe and legal abortion.

    Hillary Clinton: I’ve been to countries where governments either forced women to have abortions like they used to do in China or forced women to bear children like they used to do in Romania. And I can tell you the government has no business in the decisions that women make with their families in accordance with their faith, with medical advice. And I will stand up for that right. Quote End

    watch, its a beauty. https://www.youtube.com/wat

    • joe90 27.1
      20 October 2016 at 4:54 pm

      Donald Trump says overturning Roe v. Wade will happen "automatically" with his Supre… (Vine by @CNNPolitics) https://t.co/aoJrA3Ukd2— Brook Bufa (@jupiter896) October 20, 2016

      https://vine.co/v/5wKJ1uJVHnH

      • Sabine 27.1.1
        20 October 2016 at 4:59 pm

        Hi running mate Mike Pence, knowing for locking the same women on charges of abortion and killing of the same baby. The conviction – carrying 20 years – has been overturned by the Supreme Court in Indiana.
        Mind he also signed off on a law that would force women/couples that have had miscarriages and / or abortions to provide a proper burial with the remains. Cause nothing says more “I am pro-life and Christian’.

        I have mentioned Mike Pence here before but well i guess no one really cares about the domestic issues that could influence voters a certain way.
        But come to think of, should the orange hued buffoon win Mike Pence would be the next in line once the orange hued buffoon chokes on a blue pill.

    • wek 27.2
      20 October 2016 at 5:01 pm

      Spot on Sabine, and I would vote for Clinton on that basis alone. Not just because of abortion access, but because losing R v Wade means a whole bunch of other things would fall too. But hey, that’s just identity politics which gets in the way of the real things.

      • Sabine 27.2.1
        20 October 2016 at 5:12 pm

        @wek: that’s just identity politics which gets in the way of the real things.

        see this is where i disagree. Once Roe vs Wade is dismantled in the US and. it is scarly close to have been killed the death of a thousand cuts aka ‘Trap Law”, it will very much influence the legislation in other countries. Don’t believe we don’t have people here in NZ that would not want to do the same.

        Last country to attempt to severaly restrict Abortion rights – and contraception often falls within the scope of these laws – was Poland. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/oct/05/polish-government-performs-u-turn-on-total-abortion-ban

        For women to control their life they need to control their fertility. Take away that and we are back to 19 kids and counting and death by childbirth or exhaustion (i think they called it consumption at the time).

        • weka 27.2.1.1
          20 October 2016 at 5:48 pm

          Sorry, I was being sarcastic about the identity politics (another convo in another thread).

    • Colonial Viper 27.3
      20 October 2016 at 5:26 pm

      Hey Sabine, the US kept selling arms and Treasuries to Saudi Arabia during the Obama/Hillary Clinton years, and is providing military support in their war against Yemen. What’s the Saudi record on abortions and the treatment of women?

      • Sabine 27.3.1
        20 October 2016 at 5:37 pm

        Go away Colonial Viper.

        go the fuck away. Go have your Donald Fucking Trump make America Great again just like Hitler made Germany great for a while.

        In the name of all those that perished during the great fucking time of the third reich Fuck off.

        In my books you are useless, you serve no purpose, you have no champion and that is why you want to see the world burn.

        And just for what its fucking worth, the US American Women and girl have as much value as any other Women and Girl on this planet.

        Fuck off.

        • marty mars 27.3.1.1
          20 October 2016 at 6:09 pm

          + 1 well said – Kia kaha

          • rhinocrates 27.3.1.1.1
            20 October 2016 at 6:13 pm

            Exactly. Don’t play his game. Call him out on his trolling and derailing.

            • Colonial Viper 27.3.1.1.1.1
              20 October 2016 at 6:16 pm

              US support for foreign nations with abysmal track records on womens rights was consistent and firm under Sec State Clinton. Don’t listen to her pretty smooth DC talk, judge by her actions when she had power.

              • rhinocrates …
                20 October 2016 at 6:34 pm

                Nope, I’m not playing. Your trouble is that like your idol saying “Nobody respects women more than me”, you don’t make a very convincing feminist. The insincerity sticks out enough to be a hazard to aviation.

                People see what you’re saying as trolling and deliberate distraction from the actual point that anyone’s trying to make.

                You’re not actually trying to have an honest discussion, you just want to continue your narcissistic and spiteful little martyr’s game. Pete George lives in Dunedin. Call him and the two of you can have a pity party together. Take lots of chocolate.

                • weka …
                  20 October 2016 at 6:56 pm

                  I was just thinking about PG and what happened when it got to this point with him as a troll and someone who was damaging the community. Methinks it’s time to adopt the same response.

                  • TheExtremist …
                    20 October 2016 at 7:00 pm

                    The support for Putin I thought wrong, if not misguided, but the rape apology is where I drew the line. I never really engaged with Pete George so can’t comment. That was before my time

                • Macro …
                  20 October 2016 at 7:05 pm

                  Nope, I’m not playing. Your trouble is that like your idol saying “Nobody respects women more than me”, you don’t make a very convincing feminist. The insincerity sticks out enough to be a hazard to aviation.

                  QFT
                  Exactly why I have not engaged on this “debate” here as well.

            • weka 27.3.1.1.1.2
              20 October 2016 at 6:26 pm

              +1, 2, 3

              Great response Sabine.

          • North 27.3.1.1.2
            21 October 2016 at 12:44 am

            Yes it’s a major sadness. Our supremo leftie thinks he’s royalty round here. Can say whatever he likes and the plebs better bow down or he’ll go all Trump on them. FFS he damages this site.

        • Colonial Viper 27.3.1.2
          20 October 2016 at 6:11 pm

          Do you think Clinton will return the tens of millions of dollars that horribly misogynistic women stoning Gulf States like Saudi Arabia have donated to the Clintons (like Trump suggested), or will she keep all that money?

          • weka 27.3.1.2.1
            20 October 2016 at 6:30 pm

            Go the fuck away, man who supports and promotes a sexual predator and rapist into a place of power and then tries to make out he cares about women being abused in other places so that he can score political points.

            • TheExtremist 27.3.1.2.1.1
              20 October 2016 at 6:41 pm

              Whom also supports a dictatorial murderer in the Philippines and an authoritarian right wing hawk in Russia

          • Stephanie Rodgers 27.3.1.2.2
            20 October 2016 at 6:49 pm

            Your constant derails are really, really obvious, CV. You have no answer for the fact that your preferred candidate is a vicious bully, a sexual predator, a liar, and an unrepentant misogynist.

            Literally no one is saying, “Hillary is the best person in the whole wide world and has no flaws.”

            But on the issue of protecting the rights of women, there is absolutely no fucking contest between Clinton and Trump.

            Stop exploiting other women as meat shields to deflect attention away from that fact. You’re just making it more and more clear that fundamentally, your problem with Hillary Clinton stems from her gender.

            • Chooky 27.3.1.2.2.1
              20 October 2016 at 10:12 pm

              What a load of bullshit

            • North 27.3.1.2.2.2
              21 October 2016 at 12:48 am

              It’s all because the miffed child had a hard out spat with the NZLP a few years ago.

            • Tiger Mountain 27.3.1.2.2.3
              21 October 2016 at 7:26 am

              agree with Stephanie and Sabine, and several others who have called CV on Trump, the “but Hillary…” defence for supporting the Orange Groper ran out of fuel a long way back

          • Stuart Munro 27.3.1.2.3
            20 October 2016 at 7:16 pm

            It is a very conservative society – but the last king opened essentially unlimited free university places for women. This will change KSA – at a pace their culture can accomodate.

            Death of a Princess does not reflect the daily experience of most Saudi women – they can also travel freely to satellite states like Bahrain or Qatar which are less restrictive.

            You need also to distinguish between states and persons – the Saudi State gave the Clinton foundation money? Or Saudi citizens? With one exception they are not the same thing.

        • Colonial Viper 27.3.1.3
          20 October 2016 at 6:13 pm

          And just for what its fucking worth, the US American Women and girl have as much value as any other Women and Girl on this planet.

          Then maybe you should ask why rates of suicide and drug abuse deaths of white US women are skyrocketing under Obama.

          By the way I expect many US women to vote Trump and that Trump will hold stable the gender gap that Romney had with Obama in 2012.

        • fender 27.3.1.4
          20 October 2016 at 6:33 pm

          That’s just nasty abuse. CV may have been a loud Trumpet lately but he doesn’t deserve that.

          • weka 27.3.1.4.1
            20 October 2016 at 6:53 pm

            He’s trolling, repeatedly. And his politics are vile. I’m not talking about him thinking Trump should be president, I’m talking about the weeks of rape apology, support for fascism and oppression and then misusing women’s pain to score political points as he has just done in this subthread. If any RWer was doing this people would be all over them with far worse.

        • Chooky 27.3.1.5
          20 October 2016 at 10:14 pm

          re “Go away Colonial Viper”…no don’t go away CV…you make a lot of sense

  28. joe90 28
    20 October 2016 at 4:51 pm

    ,Oh joy, Trump’s blown a 12 point lead to put Kentucky within the margin of error.

    A LEX 18 poll of Kentucky found that Trump is dropping like a stone in the Bluegrass State. Trump has gone from a lead of 35%-23% to a lead of 31%-28% with 29% of the electorate undecided. What is encouraging for Democrats in Kentucky is that Hillary Clinton’s gain in support (+5) was larger than Trump’s loss of support (-4).

    […]

    What is unfolding is nothing less than the destruction of the far-right led Republican Party.

    http://www.politicususa.com/2016/10/19/kentucky-toss-trump-support-collapses-mitch-mcconnells-home-state.html

    • Colonial Viper 28.1
      20 October 2016 at 5:27 pm

      LOL Kentucky is an easy win for Trump

    • Ad 28.2
      20 October 2016 at 5:30 pm

      What nonsense.
      Still a likelihood that Republicans will control both the Senate and Congress.

      Status quo is the most likely Washington outcome.

      • Andre 28.2.1
        20 October 2016 at 8:57 pm

        I know nobody loves a pedant, but: Congress refers to both chambers of the legislative branch together, ie Congress is the Senate plus the House of Representatives.

    • AmaKiwi 28.3
      20 October 2016 at 8:52 pm

      joe90

      I agree. But what comes next? Long established political parties splinter apart from time to time because their underpinning alliances cannot compromise and hold together. We have interesting examples in NZ.

      Is there enough glue to hold together the Chardonnay Labour liberals and lowest paid brown New Zealanders who do their cleaning and care for their elderly parents? How long can the alliance between our rural poor and the Remuera executives/doctors/property developers survive?

      Yes, the Republican party will probably unravel. But so might NZ National and NZ Labour. The Maori and Green parties are examples of NZ Labour already not being able to hold together.

      • joe90 28.3.1
        20 October 2016 at 9:31 pm

        But so might NZ National and NZ Labour.

        NZ First and The Māori Party say it’s already happened and MMP will continue to deliver smaller and more identity focused parties forced to negotiate and compromise if they want a crack at governing. I like it.

  29. Richard Rawshark 29
    20 October 2016 at 4:56 pm

    If Trump wins, what happens to the escalating tensions in Syria, if Clinton wins what happens./. to me they are far, far more important questions than democrat or republican.

    I judged it 50/50 for the reasons each played to their supporters. Neither said anything to sway voter preference currently. Trump said Hilary corrupt, Clinton said he’s a nuclear catastrophe waiting to happen.

    He did make a good point on the steel, if you allow it , it’s going to happen, and she had plenty of time and so did the rest of them to stop it. That will have been well received by many.

    More worried though who wins and what that means to rising tensions between the communist block who are currently giving the old dog a test, will the USA and the world survive, careful words and deeds and cool heads are currently required do either of them have what it takes.

    • wek 29.1
      20 October 2016 at 5:03 pm

      Trump is a loose unit, I have no idea why anyone trusts him on what he says on foreign policy.

      • Colonial Viper 29.1.1
        20 October 2016 at 6:02 pm

        Meanwhile in another Obama foreign policy win, the Philippines publicly announced that it was renouncing its alliance with the United States

        BEIJING: Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte said it was “time to say goodbye” to the US during a visit to China on Wednesday, as the combative leader reconfigures his country’s diplomatic alliances.

        Duterte is in China for a four-day trip that is expected to confirm his tilt away from Washington and towards Beijing’s sphere of influence.

        During a speech addressing the Filipino community in Beijing, the firebrand president said the Philippines had gained little from its long alliance with the US, its former colonial ruler.

        “Your stay in my country was for your own benefit. So time to say goodbye, my friend,” he said, as if addressing the US.

        “I will not go to America anymore. I will just be insulted there,” he added, before once again referring to US President Barack Obama as a “son of a whore”.

        I guess Clinton now has a new regime change target in the Asia Pacific. This will be her legacy as President.

        http://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/asiapacific/philippines-duterte-says-goodbye-to-us-ties-in-beijing/3219936.html

    • Sanctuary 29.2
      20 October 2016 at 5:41 pm

      it isn’t 50/50, for the simple reason that Trump’s idiotic refusal to accept the outcome of the election – which produced gasps from the audience – is going to obscure his general performance. He wrote tomorrows negative headline about himself.

      • Colonial Viper 29.2.1
        20 October 2016 at 5:56 pm

        What, as opposed to the negative headlines in the MSM about Trump every day of every week for the last x months?

        Just the crony DC business as usual.

    • Colonial Viper 29.3
      20 October 2016 at 5:54 pm

      Hi Richard Rawshark.

      If I may comment on your question re: Syria.

      1) The US under Obama/Sec Clinton had a policy of destabilising Assad’s government and for the last several years now Obama has been pursuing an outright regime change agenda in Syria (“Assad must go.”)

      2) This agenda is part of the wider neocon programme of using the US to support the regional objectives of countries like Saudi Arabia, Israel and Qatar. It has typically meant the destruction of moderate socialist secular (albeit dictatorial) nations like Iraq, Libya and now Syria.

      3) The US regime change agenda continues at full pace. The US has been using imported foreign islamists ISIS/Al-Nusra as its proxy army to try and destroy the Assad regime. In essence, the US under Obama (and Clinton and the rest of the neocon set) have been fueling a proxy war which has now killed approx 400,000 Syrians (incl about 80,000 Syrian government soldiers).

      4) If Clinton gets into power she will escalate direct US involvement in Syria, not settle it down. Russia has been clear about what their response to this will be. Hence Russia is moving their Northern Fleet to Syria at this time; it will arrive off the coast of Syria days before the US election.

  30. joe90 30
    20 October 2016 at 5:02 pm

    The unpolishable.

    • marty mars 30.1
      20 October 2016 at 6:31 pm

      Well spoken that man

      • ianmac 30.1.1
        20 October 2016 at 7:21 pm

        Wonder why the same question re acceptance wasn’t put to Clinton?

        • Andre 30.1.1.1
          20 October 2016 at 7:41 pm

          uh, coz she’s been asked that before and her answer was something like of course she will respect the will of the people? Coz she has never previously said she wouldn’t respect the result? Coz she hasn’t been whining about the election being rigged? Coz even those that don’t like her don’t have any reason to doubt her professionalism around one of the most important principles of democracy, the peaceful transfer of legitimate power?

        • marty mars 30.1.1.2
          20 October 2016 at 7:49 pm

          I think also it’s the sort of question you just lie about anyway. Why not say it, that is the question.

  32. Sanctuary 32
    20 October 2016 at 5:39 pm

    It is all over bar calculating the size of the GOP/Trump defeat. Clinton neutralised her baggage and Trump’s refusal to say he will accept the outcome wrote tomorrows headlines and means no reputable politician or donor will touch him.

    Trump is finished.

    • mauī 32.1
      20 October 2016 at 5:49 pm

      I’m picking a very close election. There’s something weird going on.

      • Sanctuary 32.1.1
        20 October 2016 at 5:53 pm

        I will tell you the other reason Clinton will win in a canter. She has got all the money and all the people on the ground and all the organisation.

        In American politics, money shouts. And Trump ain’t got nothing. Not a cent. In the last three weeks, when Clinton will double on her spend, she’ll simply blitz Trump with her ca$$h.

        • Colonial Viper 32.1.1.1
          20 October 2016 at 5:57 pm

          Trump 290 electoral votes. And Sanctuary will be proven wrong.

          • TheExtremist 32.1.1.1.1
            20 October 2016 at 6:15 pm

            care to make it interesting CV? I’ll put a bet on this with you if you want?

            • Colonial Viper 32.1.1.1.1.1
              20 October 2016 at 6:20 pm

              Sure thing, how about $100 to the NZ Red Cross. Loser gets the privilege of donating.

              Conditions of the bet – that either Trump or Clinton wins by a minimum of 30 electoral votes. Failing that we donate $50 each.

              • TheExtremist …
                20 October 2016 at 6:27 pm

                I was thinking more if Trump wins I’ll never comment here again. Clinton wins and off you go.

                Keen?

                • Colonial Viper …
                  20 October 2016 at 6:58 pm

                  Oh, in that case, no. My presence on The Standard is more important to me than your presence on The Standard is to me.

                  • TheExtremist …
                    20 October 2016 at 7:47 pm

                    Well how about a straight FPP. Trump wins I donate $50 to Red Cross, Clinton wins you donate. In fact – I’ll give you 2 to 1. Trump wins I’ll donate $100.

          • North 32.1.1.1.2
            21 October 2016 at 12:56 am

            Yes CV you will be right and Sanctuary will of course be wrong. So Trump. Thank God the NZLP misbehaved. Without that Master of
            the Univetse CV would
            be like the rest of us.
            Watching with great interest.

  33. mauī 33
    20 October 2016 at 5:46 pm

    CNN’s room full of undecided voters watching the debate has 5 people deciding they will now vote Clinton, while 10 people are now voting Trump. That didn’t work out how they wanted it!

    • Colonial Viper 33.1
      20 October 2016 at 6:06 pm

      The regular Luntz post debate focus group has given it 14:12 for Trump. So very close. Clinton got bonus marks for standing up for the US electoral system.

      http://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavlich/2016/10/19/luntz-focus-group-xxxx-won-the-debate-n2234745

      • left_forward 33.1.1
        20 October 2016 at 6:15 pm

        polishing the turd CV!

      • Pasupial 33.1.2
        20 October 2016 at 6:16 pm

        It seems unlikely that anyone is honestly undecided at this point. I’d say CNN’s foot vote was evidence of Trump’s supporters being willing to get that vote as rigged as the votes in self-selecting internet polls will show that Trump won his third straight debate.

        The democrats would be more likely to pay someone to take care of that distasteful chore, Trump’s republicans would cause mayhem for free. I’d vote for Hillary, but I couldn’t get too enthusiastic about it.

        We’ll see what the real polls say later. But that had too be a Clinton win! The only laugh I recall from the crowd all night was when Trump claimed; “nobody has more respect for women than me”.

  34. Julie 34
    20 October 2016 at 5:51 pm

    “How to lose an election in 90 minutes”
    by Donald Trump

  35. Colonial Viper 35
    20 October 2016 at 6:24 pm

    BTW if Trump wins on Nov 8, the Clinton Camp and the Deep State machinery will be the absolute first to call foul on election tampering – by the Ruskies.

  36. Sanctuary 36
    20 October 2016 at 6:49 pm

    If Trump does win, it won’t be the deep state that gets rid of him. In about twelve months the last functioning federal institution, the army, Will do it. Mark my words.

  38. Ovid 38
    20 October 2016 at 11:37 pm

    I think we all have to take a step back and understand that none of us (unless you have US citizenship and therefore a vote) will make a blind bit of difference to the outcome of the US election. We are, of course, all politically engaged and we wouldn’t be here if we didn’t enjoy political discussion and debate. But I have found myself commenting far less frequently here over recent months. It feels like there’s been a loss of camaraderie.

    I don’t know if that means I’ve changed or this community has changed or both.

    I don’t expect to go to any forum to find voices and views in lock-step with my own. I try to keep in mind that the people I talk with online have views and experiences at least as complex as my own and a few brief paragraphs can never fully communicate the depth of a person’s experience. There too was a time in my life where I enjoyed being a contrarian, or playing devil’s advocate. That said, I can only take what is said on screen at face value.

    I will not say what the Standard should or shouldn’t do. It’s a community that resists that kind of prescriptiveness. But I do think it’s time for me to disengage for a while. Enjoy this beautiful spring weather (although today’s rainy weather wasn’t so good), celebrate Labour Day and come back after the 8th for some fresh discussion.

    • Anne 38.1
      21 October 2016 at 11:17 am

      I have found myself commenting far less frequently here over recent months. It feels like there’s been a loss of camaraderie.

      Your’e certainly not the only one who feels that way Ovid. Once we were able to disagree with one another largely without the abuse and nasty innuendos.

Links to post