Placeholder Image

字幕表 動画を再生する

  • um

  • uh

  • you

  • uh right

  • foreign

  • so

  • good evening from the thomas and mack center  at the university of nevada las vegas i'm chris  

  • wallace of fox news and i welcome you to the third  and final of the 2016 presidential debates between  

  • secretary of state hillary clinton and donaldtrump this debate is sponsored by the commission  

  • on presidential debates the commission has  designed the format six roughly 15-minute segments  

  • with two-minute answers to the first question  then open discussion for the rest of each segment  

  • both campaigns have agreed to those rules for the  record i decided the topics and the questions in  

  • each topic none of those questions has been shared  with the commission or the two candidates the  

  • audience here in the hall has promised to remain  silent no cheers boos or other interruptions so  

  • we and you can focus on what the candidates have  to say no noise except right now as we welcome the  

  • democratic nominee for president secretary clinton  and the republican nominee for president mr trump

  • secretary clinton mr trump welcome let's get right  to it the first topic is the supreme court we you  

  • both talked briefly about the court in the last  debate but i want to drill down on this because  

  • the next president will almost certainly  have at least one appointment and likely  

  • or possibly two or three appointments which  means that you will in effect determine the  

  • balance of the court for what could be the  next quarter century first of all where do  

  • you want to see the court take the country and  secondly what's your view on how the constitution  

  • should be interpreted is do the founders words  mean what they say or is it a living document  

  • to be a fl applied flexibly according to changing  circumstances in this segment secretary clinton  

  • you go first you have two minutes thank you very  much chris and thanks to unlv for hosting us  

  • you know i think when we talk about  the supreme court it really raises  

  • the central issue in this election namely  what kind of country are we going to be  

  • what kind of opportunities will we provide for our  citizens what kind of rights will americans have  

  • and i feel strongly that the supreme court needs  to stand on the side of the american people  

  • not on the side of the powerful corporations  and the wealthy for me that means that we need  

  • a supreme court that will stand up on behalf of  women's rights on behalf of the rights of the  

  • lgbt community that will stand up and say no to  citizens united a decision that has undermined the  

  • election system in our country because of the way  it permits dark unaccountable money to come into  

  • our electoral system i have major disagreements  with my opponent about these issues and others  

  • that will be before the supreme court butfeel that at this point in our country's history  

  • it is important that we not reverse marriage  equality that we not reverse roe v wade  

  • that we stand up against citizens united  we stand up for the rights of people  

  • in the workplace that we stand up and basically  say the supreme court should represent all of us  

  • that's how i see the court and the kind of people  that i would be looking to nominate to the court  

  • would be in the great tradition of standing up  to the powerful standing up on behalf of our  

  • rights as americans and i look forward to having  that opportunity i would hope that the senate  

  • would do its job and confirm the nominee that  president obama has sent to them that's the way  

  • the constitution fundamentally should operate the  president nominates and then the senate advises  

  • and consents or not but they go forward with the  process secretary clinton thank you mr trump same  

  • question where do you want to see the court  take the country and how do you believe the  

  • constitution should be interpreted well first  of all it's great to be with you and thank you  

  • everybody the supreme court it's what it's all  about our country is so so it's just so imperative  

  • that we have the right justices something  happened recently where justice ginsburg  

  • made some very very inappropriate statements  toward me and toward a tremendous number of people  

  • many many millions of people that i represent and  she was forced to apologize and apologize she did  

  • but these were statements that should never ever  have been made we need a supreme court that in my  

  • opinion is going to uphold the second amendment  and all amendments but the second amendment  

  • which is under absolute siege i believe if my  opponent should win this race which i truly don't  

  • think will happen we will have a second amendment  which will be a very very small replica of what it  

  • is right now but i feel that it's absolutely  important that we uphold because of the fact  

  • that it is under such uh trauma i feel that the  justices that i am going to appoint and i've named  

  • 20 of them the justices that i'm going to appoint  will be pro-life they will have a conservative  

  • bent they will be protecting the second  amendment they are great scholars in all cases  

  • and they're people of tremendous respect they will  interpret the constitution the way the founders  

  • wanted it interpreted and i believe that's very  very important i don't think we should have  

  • justices appointed that decide what they want to  hear it's all about the constitution of of and and  

  • so important the constitution the way it was meant  to be and those are the people that i will appoint  

  • mr trump thank you we now have about 10  minutes for an open discussion i want to  

  • focus on two issues that in fact by the justices  that you name could end up changing the existing  

  • law of the land first is one that you mentioned  mr trump and that is guns secretary clinton  

  • you said last year and let me quote the supreme  court is wrong on the second amendment and now in  

  • fact in the 2008 heller case the court ruled that  there is a constitutional right to bear arms but a  

  • a right that is reasonably limited those were the  words of the of the judge antonin scalia who wrote  

  • the decision what's wrong with that well first  of all i support the second amendment i lived in  

  • arkansas for 18 wonderful years i represented  upstate new york i understand and respect the  

  • tradition of gun ownership it goes back to the  founding of our country but i also believe that  

  • there can be and must be reasonable regulation  because i support the second amendment doesn't  

  • mean that i want people who shouldn't have guns  to be able to threaten you kill you or members  

  • of your family and so when i think about what we  need to do we have 33 000 people a year who die  

  • from guns i think we need comprehensive background  checks need to close the online loophole close the  

  • gun show loophole there's other matters thatthink are sensible that are the kind of reforms  

  • that would make a difference that are not in  any way conflicting with the second amendment  

  • you mentioned the heller decision and whatwas saying that you referenced chris was that  

  • i disagreed with the way the court applied the  second amendment in that case because what the  

  • district of columbia was trying to do was to  protect toddlers from guns and so they wanted  

  • people with guns to safely store them and the  court didn't accept that reasonable regulation but  

  • they've accepted many others so i see no conflict  between saving people's lives and defending the  

  • second amendment let me bring mr trump in here the  bipartisan open debate coalition got millions of  

  • votes on questions to ask here and this was in  fact one of the top questions that they got how  

  • will you ensure the second amendment is protected  you just heard secretary clinton's answer  

  • does she persuade you that while you may disagree  on regulation that in fact she supports a second  

  • amendment right to bear arms well the d.c versus  heller decision uh was very strongly and she was  

  • extremely angry about it i watched i mean she was  very very angry when upheld and justice scalia was  

  • so involved and it was a well-crafted decision but  hillary was extremely upset extremely angry and  

  • people that believe in the second amendment and  believe in it very strongly were very upset with  

  • what she had to say let me bring in secretary  clinton were you extremely upset well i was  

  • upset because unfortunately dozens of toddlers  uh injure themselves even kill people with guns  

  • because unfortunately not everyone who has loaded  guns in their homes takes appropriate precautions  

  • but there's no doubt that i respect the  second amendment that i also believe there's  

  • an individual right to bear arms that is not in  conflict with sensible common sense regulation and  

  • you know look i understand that donald's been uh  strongly supported by the nra the gun lobby's on  

  • his side they're running millions of dollars of  ads against me and i regret that because what i  

  • would like to see is for people to come together  and say of course we're going to protect and  

  • defend the second amendment but we're going to  do it in a way that tries to save some of these  

  • 33 000 lives that we lose every year let me bring  mr trump back into that because in fact you oppose  

  • any limits on assault weapons any limits on high  capacity magazines you support a national right  

  • to carry law why sir well let me just tell you  before we go any further in chicago which has the  

  • toughest gun laws in the united states probably  you could say by far they have more gun violence  

  • than any other city so we have the toughest laws  and you have tremendous gun violence i am a very  

  • strong supporter of the second amendment and  i am i don't know if hillary was saying it  

  • in a sarcastic manner but i'm very proud to have  the endorsement of the nra and it's the earliest  

  • endorsement they've ever given to anybody who ran  for president so i'm very honored by all of that  

  • we are going to appoint justices this is the best  way to help the second amendment we are going  

  • to appoint justices that will feel very strongly  about the second amendment that will not do damage  

  • to the second amendment well let's pick up on  another issue which divides you and the justices  

  • that whoever ends up winning this election points  could have a dramatic effect that there and that's  

  • the issue of abortion right mr trump you're  pro-life but i want to ask you specifically do  

  • you want the court including the justices that you  will name to overturn roe v wade which includes  

  • in fact states a woman's right to abortion well if  that would happen because i am pro-life and i will  

  • be appointing pro-life judges i would think that  that will go back to the individual states but  

  • i'm asking you specifically would you like if they  overturned it it'll go back to the states but what  

  • i'm asking you sir is do you want to see the court  overturned you just said you want to see the court  

  • protect the second amendment do you want to  see the court overturn right well if we put  

  • another two or perhaps three justices on  that's really what's going to be that's will  

  • happen and that'll happen automatically in my  opinion because i am putting pro-life justices

um

字幕と単語

動画の操作 ここで「動画」の調整と「字幕」の表示を設定することができます

B1 中級

美国大选第三场 01

  • 10 0
    Yiu Fung Chow に公開 2021 年 09 月 02 日
動画の中の単語