****OFFICAL**** Trump Hillary Debate 2016.09.26 Thread****

[Ahldagor]

Originally Posted by R Flair [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Trump is actually winning "the race." Even in increasingly inaccurate polls, Trump is ahead in popular vote and in delegates.

You are right about him needing to get out of his head.

He still won the debate though because at the end of the day, normal American's could see the collusion of Hillary and the moderator. He got railroaded and became emotional, but it left him looking like the good guy.

Also, he just stomped Hillary for the first half. After that is was no longer a debate but mostly just a series of questions like 'have you stopped beating your wife.' Only someone that drinks the msm koolaid and believes the conspiracies and dirt would interpret it any other way.

Fivethirtyeight has Hilbitch at 60% now. Bear in mind that they've predicted the last 2 presidential elections and mid term elections down to the county.

[R Flair]

Originally Posted by Ahldagor [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Fivethirtyeight has Hilbitch at 60% now. Bear in mind that they've predicted the last 2 presidential elections and mid term elections down to the county.

They also take forever to update their map based on polling. For instance, Trump has been winning Colorado in most polls for over 2 weeks. Also he was as much as +5 and +6 in FL polls, but they refused to make the adjustment. Basically if any poll anywhere says Hillary is even close to being ahead, they mark it democrat.

They are diehard, but like I said back when they said Trump had a 12% chance, he is actually ahead. Unless something crazy happens, Hillary doesn't have a prayer.

[Ahldagor]

Originally Posted by R Flair [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

They also take forever to update their map based on polling. For instance, Trump has been winning Colorado in most polls for over 2 weeks. Also he was as much as +5 and +6 in FL polls, but they refused to make the adjustment. Basically if any poll anywhere says Hillary is even close to being ahead, they mark it democrat.

They are diehard, but like I said back when they said Trump had a 12% chance, he is actually ahead. Unless something crazy happens, Hillary doesn't have a prayer.

Depends on their algorithm which is their trade secret. They're good and shouldn't be discredited based on time.

[Daywolf]

hah Trump losing from the lead. Then again Sanders skunked Hillary, but I don't think Hillary has enough money to pay off Trump like she did with Sanders. Or was that a "I know where you live" sort of deal >.>

[Paleman]

anyone able to decode whatever trump said during this debate?

[Csihar]

Okay but then it's:

1) Individual displaying suspicious is investigated
2) Officer is justified in believing this person may be armed
3) Person is frisked

Right?

I can't seem to get a straight answer to the my question. Was stop and frisk the act of RANDOMLY selecting people? Or was it simply the act of frisking someone who was already being engaged? It sounded random to me, which wouldn't be covered by what that text described.

If it's about frisking people who are already being investigated then alright. The name is pretty odd then though. 'Stop and frisk'

[Daywolf]

Originally Posted by Csihar [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Okay but then it's:

1) Individual displaying suspicious is investigated
2) Officer is justified in believing this person may be armed
3) Person is frisked

Right?

I can't seem to get a straight answer to the my question. Was stop and frisk the act of RANDOMLY selecting people? Or was it simply the act of frisking someone who was already being engaged? It sounded random to me, which wouldn't be covered by what that text described.

If it's about frisking people who are already being investigated then alright. The name is pretty odd then though. 'Stop and frisk'

Well that's why I put the old lady pic in there, flashing the gang sign while brandishing a firearm. Personally I thought it was down right hilarious, which would be the correct response while understanding the issue. But I picked up on your question from the get go, what you were leading to.

There is no "straight answer" like you are looking for, not unless it's explainable to a robot (literally meaning - not calling you a robot). This is an answer for the human equation, and why we just cant have robots patrolling the streets. May as well just fly armed autonomous drones (and they probably will very soon) if you lawyer it up to an algorithm understandable by crude robots, which it can't be understood by them and work properly.

Haven't you ever ...felt... the outcome of a situation? Whatever you want to call it, a premonition? Whatever. Robots can't do that, only people can. Cops on the streets can develop that pretty well, they call it gut feeling. Better to listen to it and be wrong than to not listen to it and be dead. At least if wrong, nobody is dead. If a robot is wrong, and they can't do gut feelings, then they just break after the attack.

So no, I refuse to lawyer cops into becoming robots, then say "see they are not good robots" and then demand robots to be put on the street. Because that's what it leads to.

The 1968 supreme court had it right, it is fully applicable to this case of stop and frisk. Considering the huge amount of cases they get every year compared to the very very few rulings they have time for (less than 1%), it's a waste of their time to go back and commentary it down to lawyer it up and then probably go back to the courts again at a future date to commentary it down again.

[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]
Makes sense now?

[Csihar]

Originally Posted by Daywolf [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Well that's why I put the old lady pic in there, flashing the gang sign while brandishing a firearm. Personally I thought it was down right hilarious, which would be the correct response while understanding the issue. But I picked up on your question from the get go, what you were leading to.

There is no "straight answer" like you are looking for, not unless it's explainable to a robot (literally meaning - not calling you a robot). This is an answer for the human equation, and why we just cant have robots patrolling the streets. May as well just fly armed autonomous drones (and they probably will very soon) if you lawyer it up to an algorithm understandable by crude robots, which it can't be understood by them and work properly.

Haven't you ever ...felt... the outcome of a situation? Whatever you want to call it, a premonition? Whatever. Robots can't do that, only people can. Cops on the streets can develop that pretty well, they call it gut feeling. Better to listen to it and be wrong than to not listen to it and be dead. At least if wrong, nobody is dead. If a robot is wrong, and they can't do gut feelings, then they just break after the attack.

So no, I refuse to lawyer cops into becoming robots, then say "see they are not good robots" and then demand robots to be put on the street. Because that's what it leads to.

The 1968 supreme court had it right, it is fully applicable to this case of stop and frisk. Considering the huge amount of cases they get every year compared to the very very few rulings they have time for (less than 1%), it's a waste of their time to go back and commentary it down to lawyer it up and then probably go back to the courts again at a future date to commentary it down again.

[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]
Makes sense now?

I don't think I'm explaining my question right but I don't know how to ask it in a different way. I'll try again.

Is the following scenario stop and frisk?

An officer goes out and thinks "I'll stop about 20 people today and see if they have a weapon. I'll start with the first person I see". Kind of silly but I'm trying to make it as clear as possible. So the stopping of a person would be completely random. The accusation of course would be that it wasn't in fact random but they were purposely selecting black and hispanic men. IF that is the case then I don't see how it's protected under the constitution.

Or is the following scenario stop and frisk?

An officer sees someone acting specific and stops them. Not a random act. Then he proceeds to frisk them. I see how that could be defended under the text you posted.

Was it something that was added to aid officers during a stop (a stop that they normally would have made anyway)? Or was it an action in itself like a routine drunk driving checkup? Anyone that passes will get checked.

Hopefully it's more clear now.

[Nihilist_santa]

Originally Posted by Csihar [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

I don't think I'm explaining my question right but I don't know how to ask it in a different way. I'll try again.

Is the following scenario stop and frisk?

An officer goes out and thinks "I'll stop about 20 people today and see if they have a weapon. I'll start with the first person I see". Kind of silly but I'm trying to make it as clear as possible. So the stopping of a person would be completely random. The accusation of course would be that it wasn't in fact random but they were purposely selecting black and hispanic men. IF that is the case then I don't see how it's protected under the constitution.

Or is the following scenario stop and frisk?

An officer sees someone acting specific and stops them. Not a random act. Then he proceeds to frisk them. I see how that could be defended under the text you posted.

Was it something that was added to aid officers during a stop (a stop that they normally would have made anyway)? Or was it an action in itself like a routine drunk driving checkup? Anyone that passes will get checked.

Hopefully it's more clear now.

It's pretty simple what the issue is. Basically anytime police are proactive like with stop and frisk it gets labeled as racist or profiling. Why? Simple because proactive policing means going to where the crime is AKA where tha blacks be.

[AzzarTheGod]

Originally Posted by Nihilist_santa [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

It's pretty simple what the issue is. Basically anytime police are proactive like with stop and frisk it gets labeled as racist or profiling. Why? Simple because proactive policing means going to where the crime is AKA where tha blacks be.

Yeah but that's kind of racist if you don't even need to go there.

Poor and destitute commit the crimes. Its all about the money. It just so happens black people have no money 99% of the time.

Ask yourself about the crimes you may have committed, I am sure they are all money related whether directly or indirectly. Money makes everything better.

Even situations you might not have thought about:

Example, assault and battery at the bar while cruising for girls. Well, if you were very well-off, you'd probably be doing like Jimmy Norton and have a different high end escort for every day of the week. You aren't going to be tussling with guys at the bar for not respecting you.

The face of money is everywhere.