Debate Monday

[Kathianne]

What will we see?

http://hotair.com/archives/2016/09/23/surprise-team-trump-actually-taking-debate-seriously/

[sundaydriver]

Trump has already asked that Lester Holt do no fact checking during the debate, pretty obvious why. I guess that includes no laughing or WTF's?

[Bilgerat]

Anybody remember the "Candy Crowley" moment?

You know, the one where she "supposedly" fact checked and gave the whole moment to Obama

Then later, craw-fished the moment over the wrong "word", admitting that Romney was right "in the main".

So yeah, I can understand why Trump is wanting the lap dog, left leaning media to keep their grubby mouths shut.

But I'm certain they will be there for the Hildabeast.

[Abbey Marie]

I just wonder if she will get them to make it a sit-down debate to cover her problems.

[aboutime]

ACTUALLY. All Trump really has to do is STAY QUIET, and let Hillary LIE about everything while she attempts to side-step, and filibuster with every question.
He should simply smile, and say THANK YOU Mrs. Clinton, every time she looks, and speaks to him.

Nothing pisses someone who wants to ARGUE more than not getting whoever they are addressing to simply SMILE, and REMAIN QUIET.

Trump should allow her to ramble, and bow down to all of the MSM pre-planned, approved questions until she talks so long...she starts to BARK, COUGH, and CHOKE.

END OF GAME.

Trump CANNOT be held responsible for something HE DOESN'T SAY!

[Elessar]

Anybody remember the "Candy Crowley" moment?

You know, the one where she "supposedly" fact checked and gave the whole moment to Obama

Then later, craw-fished the moment over the wrong "word", admitting that Romney was right "in the main".

So yeah, I can understand why Trump is wanting the lap dog, left leaning media to keep their grubby mouths shut.

But I'm certain they will be there for the Hildabeast.

The left-loaded media loves to tell folks "This is what was said" as if our own
ears and intelligence didn't hear it to begin with.

Then they write it up in big headlines the next day, distorting was was actually spoken.

[Elessar]

ACTUALLY. All Trump really has to do is STAY QUIET, and let Hillary LIE about everything while she attempts to side-step, and filibuster with every question.
He should simply smile, and say THANK YOU Mrs. Clinton, every time she looks, and speaks to him.

Nothing pisses someone who wants to ARGUE more than not getting whoever they are addressing to simply SMILE, and REMAIN QUIET.

Trump should allow her to ramble, and bow down to all of the MSM pre-planned, approved questions until she talks so long...she starts to BARK, COUGH, and CHOKE.

END OF GAME.

Trump CANNOT be held responsible for something HE DOESN'T SAY!

Good idea, aboutime !

Him keeping silent (although I doubt it), would frizz her poorly kept hair.

Yet he still has to stand his ground and stare that lying bitch down!

[aboutime]

Good idea, aboutime !

Him keeping silent (although I doubt it), would frizz her poorly kept hair.

Yet he still has to stand his ground and stare that lying bitch down!

[Thanks. Remember last week when Donald lured all of the Press into waiting more than two hours for him to talk about OBAMA...The Birther issue? And he played them like a fiddle, making a simple ONE SENTENCE ANNOUNCEMENT?

That would be a great tactic to use again. Hillary would crap if Trump just looked at her, and smiled, then THANKED HER.
He could quote Lincoln, or Mark Twain to Hillary, and just SMILE:laugh:

Dear Quote Investigator: Here are two versions of an entertaining saying that is usually credited to Abraham Lincoln or Mark Twain:

"Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak and to remove all doubt. It's better to keep your mouth shut and appear stupid than open it and remove all doubt."[/CENTER]

[aboutime]

http://www.breitbart.com/tech/2016/06/16/200-page-anti-trump-book-dnc-leaked/

[Russ]

My expectations for the debate on Monday:

1. Hillary will want to be sitting down
2. Hillary will want to take frequent breaks off-stage. I understand there will be no commercial breaks, so I'm looking forward to seeing how she tries to do this.
3. The moderator Lester Holt will frequently try to challenge Trump on facts but will challenge Hillary little or not at all.
4. Liberal media outlets (MSNBC, Politico, ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN) will immediately declare that "it looks like Hillary won it", no matter how the debate goes.
5. There will be some well-known liberal person(s) sitting in the front row trying to cheer for Hillary.


Two intriguing questions about the debate:
1. Will Hillary make it through the debate without falling over, or her eyes glazing over, or making chicken-clucking motions with her head when a flash goes off?
2. What's the over/under on how many times Hillary calls Trump a name, like "____-ist" or "____-in-Chief" ?

[Black Diamond]

How much of the country will watch the NFL instead?

[NightTrain]

I heard on the radio that there will be no breaks during the 90-minute debate, so I'm wondering how they're going to keep her juiced up - have a fitted injection machine triggered by her doc backstage by radio control?

Also they said they were modifying the podiums so that Trump doesn't have an "unfair height advantage" during the debate... so it sounds like they'll be standing up.

And it's going to be a hell of a lot hotter than 72 degrees - which triggered her heat exhaustion on 9/11 when she got dragged into the van while pieces of robot began falling off at an alarming rate.

[aboutime]

I heard on the radio that there will be no breaks during the 90-minute debate, so I'm wondering how they're going to keep her juiced up - have a fitted injection machine triggered by her doc backstage by radio control?

Also they said they were modifying the podiums so that Trump doesn't have an "unfair height advantage" during the debate... so it sounds like they'll be standing up.

And it's going to be a hell of a lot hotter than 72 degrees - which triggered her heat exhaustion on 9/11 when she got dragged into the van while pieces of robot began falling off at an alarming rate.


NightTrain. Maybe Hillary has requested a hidden KITTY LITTER BOX behind her podium, just in case she has a sudden need to SILENTLY do, what she does so well on most Americans!:laugh:

[sundaydriver]

Anybody remember the "Candy Crowley" moment?

You know, the one where she "supposedly" fact checked and gave the whole moment to Obama

Then later, craw-fished the moment over the wrong "word", admitting that Romney was right "in the main".

So yeah, I can understand why Trump is wanting the lap dog, left leaning media to keep their grubby mouths shut.

But I'm certain they will be there for the Hildabeast.


Not only does Trump not want to be instantly countered on his claims by the Moderator but also claimed that the debate would be unfair with Holt being a Democrat. Ohh wait, Holt is a registered Republican, well, maybe it will be okay then. :shitfan:

[Russ]

Holt is a registered Republican

After seeing your post, I checked it out and sure enough, he is listed as a registered Republican. I must say, that is a shocker.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Not only does Trump not want to be instantly countered on his claims by the Moderator but also claimed that the debate would be unfair with Holt being a Democrat. Ohh wait, Holt is a registered Republican, well, maybe it will be okay then. :shitfan:

As if there are not legions of RINO's....
One of the most damaging plagues of the REPUBLICAN PARTY IS ITS MANY LIFELONG RINO'S...
Such deceit and corruption is a mainstay in the Dem party as they actively infiltrate the Republican party to wreck havoc and produce grave damage.

This Holt clown is very likely rejected by Trump due to that being the case IMHO.
I'LL BET A DAMN DOLLAR TO A DONUT THAT AFTER THE DEBATE WE WILL SEE HOW AND WHAT TRAPS WERE SET TO DAMAGE TRUMP AS WELL AS WHAT ADVANTAGES WERE PUT IN PLACE TO LIFT AND EXALT THE FFING HILDABEAST.---TYR

[sundaydriver]

As if there are not legions of RINO's....
One of the most damaging plagues of the REPUBLICAN PARTY IS ITS MANY LIFELONG RINO'S...
Such deceit and corruption is a mainstay in the Dem party as they actively infiltrate the Republican party to wreck havoc and produce grave damage.

This Holt clown is very likely rejected by Trump due to that being the case IMHO.
I'LL BET A DAMN DOLLAR TO A DONUT THAT AFTER THE DEBATE WE WILL SEE HOW AND WHAT TRAPS WERE SET TO DAMAGE TRUMP AS WELL AS WHAT ADVANTAGES WERE PUT IN PLACE TO LIFT AND EXALT THE FFING HILDABEAST.---TYR

Why take responsibility for one's own words & actions when always playing a victim is so much easier and less time consuming? :rolleyes:

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Why take responsibility for one's own words & actions when always playing a victim is so much easier and less time consuming? :rolleyes:

As in, why admit the clear truth of my words..
As in--how the hildabeast has taken responsibility for her words and even here fatal actions!??
Do tell, if you are ever brave enough to speak the truth..-Tyr

[aboutime]

Looking forward to watching. All of the WHAT-IF's will instantly become clear. And my suggestion still stands for Donald. SMILE, keep yourself under control, and STAY QUIET.

NOTHING pisses someone off more (Hillary) than NOT getting the reply, or response they NEED to control the situation.

It's like Donald, knowing when to WALK AWAY from the bully who will be loaded for Bear (LIES).

Americans who pay attention to politics, (like most of us here on DP) know what is happening. And the Americans who never pay attention to politics will just stay as UNINFORMED, and UNEDUCATED as they are TODAY, and will be TOMORROW.

[revelarts]

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/564x/d3/69/77/d369775d561a6c1b9e37cf2f3d9ec2eb.jpg



Bill Clinton's Ex-Girlfriend, Gennifer Flowers, Confirms She Will "Definitely Be At The Debate"


Following Trump's earlier tweet, "If dopey Mark Cuban of failed Benefactor fame wants to sit in the front row, perhaps I will put Gennifer Flowers right alongside of him!"; Bill Clinton's old girlfriend confirmed she will indeed be attending the debates on Monday.
In response to Hillary Clinton giving Mark Cuban front row seats at the debate, Trump tweeted:
As a reminder, Bill Clinton testified under oath (http://www.nytimes.com/1998/03/14/us/testing-president-accuser-jones-lawyers-issue-files-alleging-clinton-pattern.html) in 1998 that he had a sexual affair with Flowers.
In his January 1998 deposition, the President, though finally confirming a sexual encounter with Ms. Flowers, was precise in denying Ms. Willey's report that he had sought to kiss her and feel her breasts in an encounter in his private dining room off the Oval Office.
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-09-24/following-trump-threat-gennfier-flowers-reportedly-confirms-debate-attendance

[Perianne]

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/564x/d3/69/77/d369775d561a6c1b9e37cf2f3d9ec2eb.jpg



Bill Clinton's Ex-Girlfriend, Gennifer Flowers, Confirms She Will "Definitely Be At The Debate"


Following Trump's earlier tweet, "If dopey Mark Cuban of failed Benefactor fame wants to sit in the front row, perhaps I will put Gennifer Flowers right alongside of him!"; Bill Clinton's old girlfriend confirmed she will indeed be attending the debates on Monday.
In response to Hillary Clinton giving Mark Cuban front row seats at the debate, Trump tweeted:
As a reminder, Bill Clinton testified under oath (http://www.nytimes.com/1998/03/14/us/testing-president-accuser-jones-lawyers-issue-files-alleging-clinton-pattern.html) in 1998 that he had a sexual affair with Flowers.
In his January 1998 deposition, the President, though finally confirming a sexual encounter with Ms. Flowers, was precise in denying Ms. Willey's report that he had sought to kiss her and feel her breasts in an encounter in his private dining room off the Oval Office.
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-09-24/following-trump-threat-gennfier-flowers-reportedly-confirms-debate-attendance

And Paula Jones and Juanita Broaddrick want to attend!

[Abbey Marie]

While seeing these reminders of slick Willy's sexual issues is fun, I suspect it will just make people feel sorry for Hillary. And don't count on the networks to even show them on camera.

[NightTrain]

While seeing these reminders of slick Willy's sexual issues is fun, I suspect it will just make people feel sorry for Hillary. And don't count on the networks to even show them on camera.

That's true, but Hillary would be thrown off her game by having to stare at Flowers... essentially the same thing Hillary is trying to do to Trump.

[Abbey Marie]

That's true, but Hillary would be thrown off her game by having to stare at Flowers... essentially the same thing Hillary is trying to do to Trump.

I guess that's true- it might hurl her into beyotch mode.

[revelarts]

That's true, but Hillary would be thrown off her game by having to stare at Flowers... essentially the same thing Hillary is trying to do to Trump.

Another women probably won't throw her off. She's handled Bills honeys for decades.
Hillary seems a cold blooded machine on that front.

But the TV networks would be fools not to show Flowers. The TV networks are audience whores/addicts. And this is real REALITY TV without the cost of set up. Political debate with the 1st women presidential candidate, and a her husbands former mistress in the audience. They'd be Idiots not to hype this to death just for the ratings. People who aren't even going to vote would tune in just to gawk at Bill, Hilary and Flowers. If Broaderrick and Paula Jones showed up it'd be a FULL ON SEASON FiNALLY reality show Circus. The only thing that would make it better is if they could get Monica Lewinski and one of Trumps Ex-wives sitting in as commentators before during and after the debates.

[aboutime]

Wouldn't it be great if FLOWERS showed up wearing a BLUE Monica dress?:dance:

[Abbey Marie]

Our Founding Fathers would not believe it.

[jimnyc]

I know that they announced that Flowers wasn't going to attend. From what I understand, she never was going to attend, even though they made it appear that way. Then again, maybe she will show up.

Better yet, have the 'Benghazi Mom' front and center, and have Trump refer to her, and Hillary's lying to her when he can.

Honestly, I'm not even tuning in, I'm watching football instead. I truly can't stomach even 5 minutes of that wench on my screen. My vote is what matters and I don't need the debate to help make up my mind. I'm sure there will be a highlight reel of some sort tomorrow, with both sides claiming victory.

[Bilgerat]

Ohh wait, Holt is a registered Republican, well, maybe it will be okay then. :shitfan:


After seeing your post, I checked it out and sure enough, he is listed as a registered Republican. I must say, that is a shocker.

AND he works for NBC

A KNOWN shill for the Hildabeast :laugh:

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

AND he works for NBC

A KNOWN shill for the Hildabeast :laugh:

I'd lay 20 to 1 odds that Hillary and her team have the questions to be asked and are prepared with her "canned answers", whereas Trump has no such info.. given ahead of show time...
Additionally, this Holt scum has been briefed on every trap set to trip Trump up and has been ordered/commanded/paid to help the Hildabeast in any possible way that he can...
Anybody that thinks his being chosen isn't a fix in itself, is not playing with a full deck...-Tyr

[sundaydriver]

This Holt clown is very likely rejected by Trump due to that being the case IMHO.
I'LL BET A DAMN DOLLAR TO A DONUT THAT AFTER THE DEBATE WE WILL SEE HOW AND WHAT TRAPS WERE SET TO DAMAGE TRUMP AS WELL AS WHAT ADVANTAGES WERE PUT IN PLACE TO LIFT AND EXALT THE FFING HILDABEAST.---TYR[/QUOTE]

]Nothing like a bag full of excuses out there before the debate even starts! He's a Dem, if I lose it's fixed, everyone loves me except all that hate me, whaaaaa! :laugh:



As in, why admit the clear truth of my words..
As in--how the hildabeast has taken responsibility for her words and even here fatal actions!??
Do tell, if you are ever brave enough to speak the truth..-Tyr

Brave enough to respond on the internet or what you call truth? That I don't like Trump doesn't mean I think any better of Clinton just because I don't stoop to always name calling and disparagement of people I don't agree with. What I remarked on was about Trump not Hillary, so no mention of her, understand?


[QUOTE=Tyr-Ziu Saxnot;834138]I'd lay 20 to 1 odds that Hillary and her team have the questions to be asked and are prepared with her "canned answers", whereas Trump has no such info.. given ahead of show time...
Additionally, this Holt scum has been briefed on every trap set to trip Trump up and has been ordered/commanded/paid to help the Hildabeast in any possible way that he can...
Anybody that thinks his being chosen isn't a fix in itself, is not playing with a full deck...-Tyr[/QUOTE

Even more whining! :lol:


Lester Holt was accepted by both candidates and is only going to facilitate the debate not referee it. He can ask a follow up question though if he feels one or the other skirts or misrepresents their previous statements.

The rules for the debate have been worked out and accepted by both side ahead of time along with the Debate Commission. We only know about the NO FACT CHECK because Trump brought it up in an Interview and NO Holt is not handing out questions to either side before hand.

[sundaydriver]

AND he works for NBC

A KNOWN shill for the Hildabeast :laugh:

You know what I love? After calling out Holt for being a Democrat when he's not, Trump didn't correct himself or apologize for saying it's in the tank cause Holt's a Dem, all that was done was put Conway out there to release this: Donald Trump's campaign manager, Kellyanne Conway, says Trump's comment that Lester Holt is a Democrat isn't a lie because the candidate didn't know Holt's voter registration.

Which means-the Trump campaign is *literally* defending Trump by saying that he's an ignoramus, not a liar. . "Don't call our candidate a liar he simply doesn't know or care to know the facts. That's not the same thing as being a liar." Sad huh!

You can't make this stuff up and is the whole crux as to why I would never support such a person for any important position.

[jimnyc]

What subjects/questions would you like to hear - that you don't think you'll hear? I think Hillary gets off light in this department.

Bill, and his never ending "dicking bimbos", and why does she support such, or ignore it?
The few alleged rapes?
Benghazi again, and why she lied to the specific mother in question?
There are endless questions that can be asked about her endless lies she's been busted in about her email server.
Her and Bill ripping off the WH on the way out - and their damaging as well.
Clinton Foundation - pay for play
Does she truly not understand classified material?
Her health, of which has been a huge factor in the past month
Her and her teams lying again about her health
Her lying in general, WHY should she be trusted when busted lying so many times

That it? Probably MUCH more, but she probably won't answer anyway, at least not a one truthfully.

[jimnyc]

Twelve Debate Questions That Hillary Clinton Should Be Ready For

1. Can you identify three policy areas or decisions on which you have differed strongly from President Obama?

Notes: An easy answer might be the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade agreement, though that could get her into flip-flopping territory if not handled adroitly, since she spoke favorably of it while in the Obama Administration but opposes it now. An answer that is important but nuanced would involve Syria.

Possible follow-up: While serving as Secretary of State, where do you think that you personally made the biggest difference in the Administration’s direction?

2. If you are elected, four out of the five most recent Presidents will have been from two families. Is that healthy for American democracy?

Notes: It’s a legitimate question, so Clinton shouldn’t be dismissive. She might convey that she has considered the question herself, but that’s she’s proud of her family’s tradition of public service and that each election is a unique cast of characters. The trick would be to formulate those two thoughts without sounding either entitled or like the lesser evil. She might indicate that part of why she’s running is to open the highest levels of American politics to a whole new field of people—i.e., women.

Bonus hint: Don’t compare yourself to F.D.R., who followed his cousin Theodore, or talk about how great it would have been if Eleanor had run to succeed him—even if it would have been.

3. What did you learn from Bernie Sanders during the primary campaign?

Notes: Yes, this question has a condescending tinge to it. But it’s also an opportunity to talk to Sanders’s supporters. Seize it. The right answer involves the wonder of a new generation that is ready for dramatic, not incremental, change. The wrong answer is a talking-to about how incremental change is better, and about how young people didn’t have the proper information to understand that she was better for them.

Possible follow-up: This might also be a time to clarify just what minimum-wage increase she wants and thinks is wise—not just what she’d be willing to sign.

4. Do young women who don’t support you just not understand how hard it used to be?

Notes: The answer is no; chastisement didn’t work well when Madeleine Albright or Gloria Steinem tried it, and it would succeed even less so here.

Possible follow-up: Looking back on the way the press and some of your own supporters—and possibly you yourself—treated and talked about women who were connected to your husband, and were called bimbos and stalkers, do you have any regrets or reflections? If Trump mentions Monica Lewinsky, Gennifer Flowers (whom he has threatened to invite), Juanita Broaddrick, et al., it will likely be in this way: pushing the idea that Hillary was Bill’s misogynistic enabler. She needs to be ready. But, apart from that, it might be an opportunity to show some human empathy, if she can bring herself to take it. Lewinsky really was treated poorly by people in both parties and by the press.

5. Would you see a problem in Chelsea Clinton soliciting large sums of money for the Clinton Foundation if you are President?

The debate might be a good time to announce that Chelsea will step down as vice-chair of the Clinton Foundation if her mother is elected.

6. You’ve said that you have never changed your vote on anything because of money—speaking fees, foundation contributions, campaign donations. Why do you think people gave that money?

By all means, use this as an opportunity to talk about the Clinton Foundation’s good works. But don’t be glib about the rest. Don’t chant some variation of “everybody does it”—that’s exactly what voters have a problem with. At all costs, avoid a repeat of the “that’s what they offered” answer, given in response to Anderson Cooper’s town-hall question about why she took large speaking fees from Goldman Sachs.

Possible follow-up: Is the presence of a quid pro quo the test, or can the presence of money be more subtly corrupting? How she answers this may help determine how credible the Democratic Party is as a force for campaign-finance reform.

7. A couple of weeks ago, you said that half of Donald Trump’s supporters fall into a “basket of deplorables,” and referred to them as “irredeemable.” Later, you said, “I regret saying ‘half’—that was wrong.” What is the correct fraction?

Notes: Clinton can hedge as much as she likes on quantifying “deplorables,” but she could say that the number of “irredeemables” is zero. In this world and in this election, no one is irredeemable.

Possible follow-up: What’s the answer to the puzzle she posed, last week, at a union gathering: “Why aren’t I fifty points ahead?” At that event, she suggested that she might be if her supporters told their neighbors the facts. For the debate, she needs to answer this in a way that does not imply that her voters are just smarter than certain other people’s voters. Also, see notes on “deplorables,” above.

8. Do you still support a no-fly zone over Syria? What moves would you take if the Russians violated it?

Notes: It’s O.K. to subtly use this and other questions as a reminder that Trump has said very odd things about Vladimir Putin—but not at the expense of a straight answer.

Possible follow-up: You’ve said that the public should know that there will not be any American ground troops in Syria. What about the special-operations teams now on the ground? (This is partly a reminder to avoid what sounds like overly legalistic linguistic parsing.)

9. As President, will you commit to closing the Guantánamo Bay prison?

Notes: See Connie Bruck’s piece on Clinton’s principled support for—but practical ambivalence about—closing the facility.

Possible follow-up: President Obama wanted to close Guantánamo. Why do you think he failed? Republican obstruction, or realizing that the world is little more complicated than he thought when he was running against you in 2008 and charming all those crowds? See Question 1, above, for some guidance on this.

10. Before he leaves office, should President Obama pardon Edward Snowden?

Notes: The big warning label on this one is that some of the crimes Snowden might be charged with—exposing classified information—are in the same territory as Clinton’s extended e-mail drama. (And it should go without saying that she must have a clear, non-defensive answer on that.) Also, see above on not letting the desire to mention Putin as often as possible hijack answers to serious questions. Those caveats aside, this might be one of the few questions where it’s all right to sound like a lawyer—mentioning, for example, a plea deal that would involve some accountability, rather than the only options being a long prison sentence or a free pass. Or she might answer by anticipating the . . .

Possible follow-up: Did you, personally, learn anything from the Snowden leaks? The answer should be yes—about the disconnect between the public’s expectation of privacy and the government’s practices, if nothing else.

11. If you lose the election, what will you say to the American people on the morning after about the legitimacy of the process?

Notes: The answer has to be that we are the greatest, freest country in the world, and that we still will be on that morning. Don’t call the American people dupes. Don’t say that your opponent is cheating. Express your trust in the instruments of American democracy—which you will fully engage with, rather than retreating to Chappaqua—to see us through. If Trump wins, one of the many great dangers is that the country will be plunged into an era in which its political discourse becomes a tangle of conspiracy theories. Don’t contribute to it.

Possible follow-up: Will it have all been the media’s fault? The answer is no. Take responsibility as a candidate.

12. Why did you go to Donald Trump’s wedding?

Maybe it was fun, as Clinton has said before. Don’t cite his support for the Clinton Foundation—that is to say, don’t make it about money. Too much of this election already is.

http://www.newyorker.com/news/amy-davidson/twelve-debate-questions-that-hillary-clinton-should-be-ready-for?intcid=mod-latest

[jimnyc]

How Trump can knock out Hillary in the first debate

It promises to be the greatest show on earth: the first presidential debate to be held Monday night at Hofstra University in New York. Rarely has a political event attracted this kind of Super Bowl-level excitement, curiosity and anticipation. Then again, rarely have we had two presidential candidates who light up the political sky like Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton.

Mrs. Clinton has been on the national scene for nearly 30 years and carries all of the baggage of those tumultuous decades: endless scandals, ethical tightrope-walking, legal dodge ball, compulsive lying, slimy blame-shifting, bunker paranoia, the systematic selling of her offices for personal enrichment and the deliberate jeopardizing of the nation’s most sensitive secrets for her family’s gain.

She is like Pig Pen in the “Peanuts” cartoon: surrounded constantly by a cloud of corruption.

Viewers will want to see how this dangerous mess interacts with her opponent, who is clearly a political chess champion despite having just begun to play. It’s going to be Pig Pen versus the Master of the Universe.

We know what Mrs. Clinton will do, which is what she’s always done: lie, fabricate, deflect and distract. Boring and predictable.

Donald Trump, on the other hand, is neither — and he has the advantage of being shiny and new. What he does with that opportunity is anyone’s guess. I suspect he’s been rope-a-doping everybody with the “we’re not doing debate prep, we’re just hanging out eating cheeseburgers” line and will, in fact, knock out Mrs. Clinton with his command of policy, her long record of failure and the positive agenda he embraces.

For a full TKO, Mr. Trump should do four main things.

First, he should emphasize his pragmatic vision for turning America around: moving to pro-growth economics, restoring law and order, rebuilding the military and a strong national defense, reigniting America’s influence and prestige internationally, and defeating the corrupt, rigged system (as embodied by Mrs. Clinton).

As a successful presidential candidate, he must offer voters a positive, compelling reason to vote for him, rather than just against his opponent. That’s why it’s critical for Mr. Trump to focus on his restorative agenda for the country.

Second, as a compliment to his optimistic vision, he must smash Mrs. Clinton, both as a failed “leader” pushing failed policies and a destructive leftist ideology and as a deeply corrupt individual who cannot — must not — be trusted with the presidency.

She will try to swarm him with policy details to try to demonstrate that he’s unprepared for the highest office in the land. She’ll try to sit above the fray, winking that she’s “been there, done that.” Well, yes. But the question is not whether she was in the game. It’s how she played it — and what results she produced. For her, the result was evermore power and a net worth of over $125 million. For the country, the result is that we are less wealthy, less prosperous, less safe, less secure, less powerful.

Mr. Trump doesn’t have to show an encyclopedic knowledge of every policy nuance. He simply has to point to the wreckage of the Obama economy and foreign policy and say: “We tried it your way.”

Mic drop.

Third, he should “gaslight” her (hat tip to Alfred Hitchcock) by remaining totally cool and unflappable while calmly pushing on her vulnerabilities, from her disgraceful lack of integrity to her hypocrisy concerning women to standing by silently if she’s seized by one of her interminable coughing attacks.

This must be done with the greatest care, taking the Reagan approach of regarding her more in sorrow than in anger: “There you go again.” And he should call her Mrs. Clinton in order to link her to the deeply flawed boy who brought her to the dance.

For all of the talk about Mr. Trump’s alleged “thin skin,” she is extraordinarily prickly. She has never faced a tough election fight or been questioned aggressively or criticized to her face. If Mr. Trump can get under her thin skin, he could provoke a caustic response that will reveal the cosseted elitist behind the frozen smile. Witness candidate Barack Obama’s calmly delivered 2008 crack, “You’re likeable enough, Hillary.” The steam came out of her ears for days.

Finally, Mr. Trump must be a happy warrior. Most voters want to believe that he’s the guy not just to fix the country — but to restore their optimism with it. They want to know that he will fight the war for America’s future not as a burden but as a joyful privilege. If he can exuberantly convey that America can be saved — and that she is worth saving — he will not just win the debate but perhaps the election.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/sep/21/how-donald-trump-can-knock-out-hillary-clinton-in-/

[Perianne]

Pig-Pen, lol.

http://www.debatepolicy.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=9384&stc=1

[jimnyc]

Pig-Pen, lol.

I've always loved Pig Pen!! Having him compared to the political pig sucks, as now I may think of her every time I see his cute little gross body gliding across the screen! :laugh:

[sundaydriver]

What subjects/questions would you like to hear - that you don't think you'll hear? I think Hillary gets off light in this department.

Bill, and his never ending "dicking bimbos", and why does she support such, or ignore it?
The few alleged rapes?
Benghazi again, and why she lied to the specific mother in question?
There are endless questions that can be asked about her endless lies she's been busted in about her email server.
Her and Bill ripping off the WH on the way out - and their damaging as well.
Clinton Foundation - pay for play
Does she truly not understand classified material?
Her health, of which has been a huge factor in the past month
Her and her teams lying again about her health
Her lying in general, WHY should she be trusted when busted lying so many times

That it? Probably MUCH more, but she probably won't answer anyway, at least not a one truthfully.

What I don't want is wasting time on rehashing of the old stuff even though it matters as to trust & ethics. We've already formed our opinions on these and heard all the lies & excuses.

Foreign Policy, domestic policy & problems, economy and how to pay for them, not platitudes or wishful thinking. I want to hear real ideas about the future of America & it's position in the world.

[jimnyc]

What I don't want is a rehash of the old stuff even though some of it matters as to trust. I don't want bimbo's or blood coming from everywhere. As important as Bengasi or emails. All the things tat have been done to death.

Foreign Policy, domestic policy & problems, economy and how to pay for them, not platitudes or wishful thinking. I want to hear real ideas about the future of America & it's position in the world.

I certainly see no issue with that at all. I would like to see just that, perhaps spot on for maybe like 70 minutes? But I also wouldn't mind seeing her nailed to the wall and asked the questions that seem to either never get asked - or watching her wiggle in front of such a massive audience.

[jimnyc]

Ten Points Trump Needs To Make Tonight

1) That none of Hillary's name-calling is true. By his answers and demeanor show that he is not: sexist, racist, deplorable, reckless, unpredictable, buffoon, homophobe, Islamaphobe. Once he shows he is a reasonable person, all of Hillary's negative ads go away.

2) He needs to say that Hillary used a secret e-mail server to cover up the pay-for-play operations of the Clinton Foundation and Bill's speeches. He should demand that Hillary promise to close the Foundation if she is elected. It's not enough to leave Bill or Chelsea in charge. And she should also pledge that neither Bill nor Chelsea will take speaking fees while she is in office.

3) He should demand the release of the Charlotte videotape of the police shooting so we get the facts and can find out the truth of what happened. Until then, we must keep an open mind.

4) He should say that school choice is the civil rights issue of our time and that it is the only way to stop schools from reflecting the racial segregation and ghettoization of our communities.

5) He needs to say that New York City was hit by terrorists because they closed the Demographics Unit that monitored Muslims and Muslim neighborhoods. They gave the goal the night off and, after the unit stopped 20 separate plots since 9-11, it wasn't around to stop the 21st.

6) He must make explicit the correlation between stopping refugees from terrorist areas and preventing future attacks. He should blast Obama's announcement that he will admit 110,000 more refugees this year and say they could and probably will be seeded with enough terrorists to hold our nation on edge for years.

7) He needs to stress that ObamaCare is crashing of its own weight. Most of the newly insured people are coming in through Medicaid, basically welfare. He should urge ending the mandatory aspects of the program but keeping the provisions for portability and no termination or premium increases when you get sick. He should say Hillary will move to government run medicine which she has always really supported.

8) Hillary is getting all the Wall Street money; she and Bill reaped massive speaking fees and Foundation donations from banks right after Bill deregulated the banks and paved the way of the '07-'08 meltdown. He should pledge to reinstate Glass-Steagall.

9) Hillary should take and release an MRI exam. Risk of dementia in a president is not one the nation can afford.

10) Hillary will flip on TPP once elected and cannot be trusted to protect American jobs. Challenge her to say NAFTA has hurt America now that our trade deficit with Mexico increased from a surplus of 1.6 billion in 1993 (the year before NAFTA) to a deficit of $61 billion in 2015.

http://www.newsmax.com/DickMorris/Dick-Morris/2016/09/26/id/750129/

[Abbey Marie]

I don't know Lester Holt, but especially this year, it is not unheard of for Dems to register Republican to vote in their state's primary. Just sayin'.

[Abbey Marie]

I certainly see no issue with that at all. I would like to see just that, perhaps spot on for maybe like 70 minutes? But I also wouldn't mind seeing her nailed to the wall and asked the questions that seem to either never get asked - or watching her wiggle in front of such a massive audience.


Fine, but I would like to see Hillary take a drug test before the debate, and have the results read aloud during it. I'd also like to see her in shorts and a t-shirt, so we can see if she is indeed wearing any medical devices.

Oh, and hook her up to a lie detector during the debate.

[jimnyc]

I don't know Lester Holt, but especially this year, it is not unheard of for Dems to register Republican to vote in their state's primary. Just sayin'.

It won't be so easy to play little games tonight, with potentially 100 million watching. Everything will be magnified x100. :) :)

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

What I don't want is wasting time on rehashing of the old stuff even though it matters as to trust & ethics. We've already formed our opinions on these and heard all the lies & excuses.

Foreign Policy, domestic policy & problems, economy and how to pay for them, not platitudes or wishful thinking. I want to hear real ideas about the future of America & it's position in the world.


What I don't want is wasting time on rehashing of the old stuff even though it matters as to trust & ethics.

Well, no shit Sherlock..
Isnt that nice--give her a clean slate for her past-- I am very damn sure she wants the same damn thing Hoss.
And you stated that as if its not ridiculous and biased as hell in her favor...
So according to you just ignore ALL that points to matters of trust and ethics!
Well hell Hoss, whats left???
DO WE PRAY FOR A MIRACLE AND GET AN UNTRUSTWORTHY, TOTALLY UNETHICAL SELF-SERVING BITCH THAT
WILL MIRACULOUSLY BRING OUR EVERY DREAM COME TRUE???

SPOKEN LIKE A TRUE PIE IN THE SKY LIBERAL..

SO HISTORY,REALITY SHOULD BE TOSSED ASIDE IN ORDER TO GO FOR THE DREAM REALITY SO OFTEN LAUDED BY FFING LIBS..

You really, really take the damn cake!!!!
I'd laugh if this wasnt about such a serious matter..

That is about like back when my 5 year old daughter when found playing hide and seek would ask me to go away and pretend that Ididnt find her!!
Really????? --Tyr

[sundaydriver]

Well, no shit Sherlock..
Isnt that nice--give her a clean slate for her past-- I am very damn sure she wants the same damn thing Hoss.
And you stated that as if its not ridiculous and biased as hell in her favor...
So according to you just ignore ALL that points to matters of trust and ethics!
Well hell Hoss, whats left???
DO WE PRAY FOR A MIRACLE AND GET AN UNTRUSTWORTHY, TOTALLY UNETHICAL SELF-SERVING BITCH THAT
WILL MIRACULOUSLY BRING OUR EVERY DREAM COME TRUE???

SPOKEN LIKE A TRUE PIE IN THE SKY LIBERAL..

SO HISTORY,REALITY SHOULD BE TOSSED ASIDE IN ORDER TO GO FOR THE DREAM REALITY SO OFTEN LAUDED BY FFING LIBS..

You really, really take the damn cake!!!!
I'd laugh if this wasnt about such a serious matter..

That is about like back when my 5 year old daughter when found playing hide and seek would ask me to go away and pretend that Ididnt find her!!
Really????? --Tyr



What I don't want is wasting time on rehashing of the old stuff even though it matters as to trust & ethics. We've already formed our opinions on these and heard all the lies & excuses.

Foreign Policy, domestic policy & problems, economy and how to pay for them, not platitudes or wishful thinking. I want to hear real ideas about the future of America & it's position in the world.

I'm sure you left off the highlighted part only to suit your purpose.

[Abbey Marie]

I'm sure you left off the highlighted part only to suit your purpose.

Given the campaign season apathy of many voters, the potentially Super Bowl ratings anticipated, and the fact that these two candidates have never debated each other, don't you think some of those "old" issues should be discussed? I do.

[sundaydriver]

Given the campaign season apathy of many voters, the potentially Super Bowl ratings anticipated, and the fact that these two candidates have never debated each other, don't you think some of those "old" issues should be discussed? I do.

We both know that it's gonna be brought out again tonight, but how many times do we need to hear the same responses and counter points on subjects that we've heard so many times already unless there is something new about them brought up. Most if not all who will be watching tonight already rendered our verdict and I want to hear about the future and solutions about todays problems.

[jimnyc]

I'd also like to see her in shorts and a t-shirt, so we can see if she is indeed wearing any medical devices.

Somehow missed this earlier, we must have posted around the same time. But holy bejeebusiness, Hillary in shorts? I do not want to see those nasty little hairy legs! :laugh: I do think she should take a brain MRI as Ben Carson stated, or perhaps other testing to ensure the American people that she is healthy enough. But I can do without the shorts an t-shirt!! UUUUUUGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH! https://i.imgur.com/63YEIT8.gif

[Perianne]

This is from CNN's front web page:

http://www.debatepolicy.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=9385&stc=1

Notice how menacing Trump looks? And the bags under his eyes, all purplish, as if they were hemorrhoids?

On the other side, there is a pleasant-looking Hillary.

[aboutime]

This is from CNN's front web page:

http://www.debatepolicy.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=9385&stc=1

Notice how menacing Trump looks? And the bags under his eyes, all purplish, as if they were hemorrhoids?

On the other side, there is a pleasant-looking Hillary.


Perianne. HILLARY has NEVER been PLEASANT looking. As a real lady yourself. You know how makeup artists can perform miracles for the UGLY women running for president.:laugh:

No intention to offend anyone else...except HITLERY.

[Abbey Marie]

Somehow missed this earlier, we must have posted around the same time. But holy bejeebusiness, Hillary in shorts? I do not want to see those nasty little hairy legs! :laugh: I do think she should take a brain MRI as Ben Carson stated, or perhaps other testing to ensure the American people that she is healthy enough. But I can do without the shorts an t-shirt!! UUUUUUGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH! https://i.imgur.com/63YEIT8.gif

Oh heck, I was thinking of saying bathing suit!

[Russ]

You know what I love? After calling out Holt for being a Democrat when he's not, Trump didn't correct himself or apologize for saying it's in the tank cause Holt's a Dem, all that was done was put Conway out there to release this: Donald Trump's campaign manager, Kellyanne Conway, says Trump's comment that Lester Holt is a Democrat isn't a lie because the candidate didn't know Holt's voter registration.


You know what - I think I'm going to go ahead and call BS on the statement that Lester Holt is a Republican. Possibly he is registered as such, but if so, I think it's a sham. For one thing, I don't think he could work as an anchor at NBC or CBS if he really sympathized with Republicans.

I will believe he's a Republican if he says on the air "I'm a Republican", or if anyone can produce any evidence that he voted for a Republican in any of the last five Presidential elections. Otherwise - BS!

[jimnyc]

Oh heck, I was thinking of saying bathing suit!

Ahhh, crap. Now you have me going back and forth between a one piece or a bikini. Either one able to make you vomit of course. Hillary? in a bikini? my lord, that's simply disgusting!! :laugh:

[Russ]

Oh, and hook her up to a lie detector during the debate.

That would have to be an industrial-strength lie detector machine...

[NightTrain]

So far Trump isn't doing so hot.

[NightTrain]

Doing better now...

And Lester Holt is doing a good job staying neutral.

[hjmick]

So far Trump isn't doing so hot.


He talks too much. Goes off track.

[NightTrain]

Check out her left eye... it's starting to stick and wander. Drugs are wearing off.

[hjmick]

FOR GOD'S SAKE SHUT UP!


It's been proven over and over that he supported the invasion of Iraq! SHUT UP! It's okay to have supported it before you didn't...

[Perianne]

And Lester Holt is doing a good job staying neutral.

????

[Black Diamond]

Trump didn't do well..



At all.

[hjmick]

It was almost two years before he expressed any concerns about the war...


Why is that a bad thing Donald?

[Black Diamond]

It was almost two years before he expressed any concerns about the war...


Why is that a bad thing Donald?

Because then there is no difference between Clinton's and Trump's judgement

[Abbey Marie]

We both know that it's gonna be brought out again tonight, but how many times do we need to hear the same responses and counter points on subjects that we've heard so many times already unless there is something new about them brought up. Most if not all who will be watching tonight already rendered our verdict and I want to hear about the future and solutions about todays problems.

I've already stated 3 reasons why.

[Abbey Marie]

FOR GOD'S SAKE SHUT UP!


It's been proven over and over that he supported the invasion of Iraq! SHUT UP! It's okay to have supported it before you didn't...

Right at that time, I heard and saw him MYSELF say he was against the war. I believe it was on Charlie Rose.

[NightTrain]

Some pretty nice body shots landed by both. Trump knocked her off her attacks with counters and interjected them in a timely fashion.

I don't think there was a clear winner.

[Black Diamond]

Some pretty nice body shots landed by both. Trump knocked her off her attacks with counters and interjected them in a timely fashion.

I don't think there was a clear winner.

I would certainly settle for that. That would be a win

[Black Diamond]

Right at that time, I heard and saw him MYSELF say he was against the war. I believe it was on Charlie Rose.

He's been against it as far back as I can remember.

[Russ]

Some pretty nice body shots landed by both. Trump knocked her off her attacks with counters and interjected them in a timely fashion.

I don't think there was a clear winner.

I agree. No clear winner.

And I will give Lester Holt credit for not being overtly partisan.

[Russ]

I made the mistake of deciding to take a sip of Scotch every time Hillary started a sentence with "I have a plan for that..." and now I'm not sure if I can go to work tomorrow.

Hillary has created more plans than Christopher Wren, but has never actually acted on one.

[Drummond]

I've just watched the BBC's relaying of the debate over here in the UK.

Trump made essentially the same point about a vacuum being left in Iraq that I have, time and again.

Obama withdrew troops from Iraq (.. AND he advertised his intentions, years in advance !). Withdrawing them left a vacuum which ISIS filled.

Trump made the thoroughly meritorious point that ISIS has the presence and the power it does in Iraq today because of the bad withdrawal decision made years earlier. And from what I heard from Clinton, she had no good answer to give in response to that.

Trump did well in that part of the debate (and in others). He can gain satisfaction from his performance tonight.

[Perianne]

????

Sometimes I think I am the only one seeing certain things. But then I ran across this:


At tonight’s debate, Donald Trump faced off not just against Hillary Clinton, but against moderator Lester Holt.


The game of two-on-one saw Holt ask no questions about:



Hillary’s emails
Benghazi
The Clinton Foundation


While ignoring these issues, Holt grilled Trump on stop-and-frisk, the birther story, his comments about women, his many bankruptcies, why he hasn’t released his tax returns — and a host of other issues the media sees as unfriendly to the Republican candidate.


Holt also repeatedly attempted to “fact check” on some of Trump’s positions, such as his claim to have opposed the Iraq War from the beginning. Holt interrupted Trump several times to interject, but rarely succeeded (and may have come across as weak and impotent).



http://heatst.com/politics/lester-holt-the-third-debater/

And more, here (http://www.newsmax.com/Politics/Donald-Trump-Lester-Hold-Hillary-Clinton-bias/2016/09/27/id/750307/).

[jimnyc]

True to my word, I really didn't "watch" the debate last night. I watched football and switched over at times. I watched highlights and read a ton before bed last night. Now I've been up since 3:30am reading a ton more. I have to wonder what was asked about my interests, and it doesn't seem like much of it.


What subjects/questions would you like to hear - that you don't think you'll hear? I think Hillary gets off light in this department.

Bill, and his never ending "dicking bimbos", and why does she support such, or ignore it?
The few alleged rapes?
Benghazi again, and why she lied to the specific mother in question?
There are endless questions that can be asked about her endless lies she's been busted in about her email server.
Her and Bill ripping off the WH on the way out - and their damaging as well.
Clinton Foundation - pay for play
Does she truly not understand classified material?
Her health, of which has been a huge factor in the past month
Her and her teams lying again about her health
Her lying in general, WHY should she be trusted when busted lying so many times

That it? Probably MUCH more, but she probably won't answer anyway, at least not a one truthfully.

I saw that Trump mentioned he would release tax crap if Hillary released 30,000+ emails that she deleted. I saw that he briefly mentioned something about her health.

Anything else?

VERY weak debate from what I saw, and from what I'm reading. No major fuckups from Trump, but nothing to write home about either. Same for Clinton. Glad I didn't watch!! Will have to wait and see if the polls see any difference from it at all.

[jimnyc]

Sometimes I think I am the only one seeing certain things. But then I ran across this:



http://heatst.com/politics/lester-holt-the-third-debater/

And more, here (http://www.newsmax.com/Politics/Donald-Trump-Lester-Hold-Hillary-Clinton-bias/2016/09/27/id/750307/).

I guess briefly what I just touched upon. He DEFINITELY should have asked such stuff, IMO. Trump also should have pushed at her on such, since it appears he was cutting her off, should have made it worth while.

[Noir]

My expectations for the debate on Monday:

1. Hillary will want to be sitting down
2. Hillary will want to take frequent breaks off-stage. I understand there will be no commercial breaks, so I'm looking forward to seeing how she tries to do this.
3. The moderator Lester Holt will frequently try to challenge Trump on facts but will challenge Hillary little or not at all.
4. Liberal media outlets (MSNBC, Politico, ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN) will immediately declare that "it looks like Hillary won it", no matter how the debate goes.
5. There will be some well-known liberal person(s) sitting in the front row trying to cheer for Hillary.


Two intriguing questions about the debate:
1. Will Hillary make it through the debate without falling over, or her eyes glazing over, or making chicken-clucking motions with her head when a flash goes off?
2. What's the over/under on how many times Hillary calls Trump a name, like "____-ist" or "____-in-Chief" ?

So give a run down on expectations vs reality.

[jimnyc]

So give a run down on expectations vs reality.

Only interested in the expectation vs. reality for Clinton? LOL Trust me, while perhaps Hillary didn't get propped up and given the baby treatment as Russ had pointed out, she did get softball questions and the tough shit was avoided mostly entirely. And then of course, I'll guarantee as the next few days go on it will be made to sound as if she trounced Trump. But that's not the reality that I'm reading

But if you're interested in the reality - wouldn't you be interested in the 'factual' reality, you know, like the things I asked, the difficult questions that will bring out the truth about her character as well - or are you only interested in the negative stuff about Trump?

[Noir]

Only interested in the expectation vs. reality for Clinton? LOL Trust me, while perhaps Hillary didn't get propped up and given the baby treatment as Russ had pointed out, she did get softball questions and the tough shit was avoided mostly entirely. And then of course, I'll guarantee as the next few days go on it will be made to sound as if she trounced Trump. But that's not the reality that I'm reading

But if you're interested in the reality - wouldn't you be interested in the 'factual' reality, you know, like the things I asked, the difficult questions that will bring out the truth about her character as well - or are you only interested in the negative stuff about Trump?

You start your post with 'only interested in Clinton' and end with 'only interested in trump' 0,o

In any case am currently reading through the transcript, and as good as that is for what people acutally said, it's not so good for the kinds of things Russ mentioned in his post, and I'm not going to watch a debate for those answers when it's more efficient to ask someone that's all ready watched it.

[jimnyc]

You start your post with 'only interested in Clinton' and end with 'only interested in trump' 0,o

In any case am currently reading through the transcript, and as good as that is for what people acutally said, it's not so good for the kinds of things Russ mentioned in his post, and I'm not going to watch a debate for those answers when it's more efficient to ask someone that's all ready watched it.

Yes, interested in somehow proving that he was wrong about Clinton with his "expectations"... or your usual of only negatives about Trump? Seem totally different to me, but I guess you knew that already. I hope so anyway....

The projection from Russ appears to be incorrect. From what I read, they were treated the same physically. The hard questions AGAIN appear to have been avoided, on both sides. Not much new learned, and no truths were shown to the "undecided" American voters, the truths that are actually facts that they need to be shown.

[Noir]

Yes, interested in somehow proving that he was wrong about Clinton with his "expectations"

Someone on the internet might have been wrong? That doesn't sound right at all.


or your usual of only negatives about Trump?

Lololol, yeah because I've never said anything negative about Clinton, she's perf.

[jimnyc]

Someone on the internet might have been wrong? That doesn't sound right at all.



Lololol, yeah because I've never said anything negative about Clinton, she's perf.

I never said you didn't say anything, just a little imbalanced is all. It's not like you don't come off as a bit of a liberal... embrace it young'un!

[Noir]

I never said you didn't say anything, just a little imbalanced is all. It's not like you don't come off as a bit of a liberal... embrace it young'un!

The word "only" means more than "a little imbalance"

Just got to the part about the e-mails, Trump just let Clinton off without so much as a jab - when returning to Trump to rebuff what Hillary described as her 'mistake' regarding personal server use, Trump changed the subject back to his tax returns. Genius.

[jimnyc]

The word "only" means more than "a little imbalance"

Just got to the part about the e-mails, Trump just let Clinton off without so much as a jab - when returning to Trump to rebuff what Hillary described as her 'mistake' regarding personal server use, Trump changed the subject back to his tax returns. Genius.

Ok, let's drop the other crap, doesn't matter. :)

I don't know why he didn't bury her at times either. He could/should have nailed her with questions and mentions about Bill's prior infidelities and/or alleged rapes, but said he didn't because he respected Chelsea who was in the audience. WTF? Suddenly he is being nice? Look, I have no problem with him being respectful to women, or avoiding such questions while the daughter is in attendance... just makes me wonder is all. I would have blasted her regardless.

[Noir]

Just finished reading through, not overly impressed by either - Clinton only really got hit hard with NAFTA and TTP, Getting away with most of everything else.

And Trump flirted with with walking off a political cliff by gloating about paying zero taxes, profiting from the recession etc, I don't think these are the kinds of comments that resonate with voters.

[jimnyc]

Just finished reading through, not overly impressed by either - Clinton only really got hit hard with NAFTA and TTP, Getting away with most of everything else.

And Trump flirted with with walking off a political cliff by gloating about paying zero taxes, profiting from the recession etc, I don't think these are the kinds of comments that resonate with voters.

I've almost watched it all now, and read a ton - and it appears my initial reaction is likely true. Neither really made any fatal mistakes, but neither hit a home run either. If anything, it would appear to be the "same 'ol, same 'ol". :(

So not only didn't we get to learn the "good" questions that some finally wanted, but we also didn't see anyone go for the jugular either.

[jimnyc]

Yup, as I just pointed out

-----

Donald Trump And Hillary Clinton Spar — And Get Personal — In First Presidential Debate

HEMPSTEAD, N.Y. — Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton sparred over trade, her emails, his taxes, crime, racism and other topics during the first general election debate, getting personal as Clinton attacked the Republican’s character and Trump dismissed the Democrat’s attempts to “act holier than thou.”

During an exchange where Clinton attacked Trump for once questioning Obama’s birthplace, Trump memorably countered by saying: “When you try to act holier than thou, it really doesn’t work. It really doesn’t.”

Interestingly, several topics — which could have helped Trump and hurt Clinton — did not come up during the debate, including about the Clinton Foundation and the Benghazi attacks.

Supporters of Trump are blaming NBC’s Lester Holt, the moderator, for the omission, though others point out that the Republican candidate could have brought them up on his own.

http://dailycaller.com/2016/09/26/donald-trump-and-hillary-clinton-spar-and-get-personal-in-first-presidential-debate/

[Russ]

So give a run down on expectations vs reality.

Here's a brief rundown:

My expectations for the debate on Monday:

1. Hillary will want to be sitting down - She did stand up for the entire debate, although who knows how many braces and drug injection systems were under that pant suit.
2. Hillary will want to take frequent breaks off-stage. I understand there will be no commercial breaks, so I'm looking forward to seeing how she tries to do this. - She made it through the debate.
3. The moderator Lester Holt will frequently try to challenge Trump on facts but will challenge Hillary little or not at all. - This essentially came true. Holt challenge Trump a lot on when he was against the Iraq war, and on the birther issue. He hardly challenged Hillary at all, even on the birther issue right after Trump stated it came out of her campaign. And no questions on emails or the Clinton Foundation.
4. Liberal media outlets (MSNBC, Politico, ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN) will immediately declare that "it looks like Hillary won it", no matter how the debate goes. - I have not checked yet, but I'll bet this will come true.
5. There will be some well-known liberal person(s) sitting in the front row trying to cheer for Hillary. - Mark Cuban


Two intriguing questions about the debate:
1. Will Hillary make it through the debate without falling over, or her eyes glazing over, or making chicken-clucking motions with her head when a flash goes off? - She stood up, but I definitely saw her eyes glazing over during the last 30 minutes.
2. What's the over/under on how many times Hillary calls Trump a name, like "____-ist" or "____-in-Chief" ? - I'm not sure if she used these terms during the debate, although she will in the next few days.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

I made the mistake of deciding to take a sip of Scotch every time Hillary started a sentence with "I have a plan for that..." and now I'm not sure if I can go to work tomorrow.

Hillary has created more plans than Christopher Wren, but has never actually acted on one.

And my two ex-wives --"promised" to be loving and faithful......
That piece of shit would promise any thing to get the crown..
And she'd have(they already have if sources are true) anybody murdered to continue the fantastically wealthy and corrupt lives that SHE, BILL AND THAT DAUGHTER now have.
I believe less than 1% of what that scum says.. -Tyr

[revelarts]

Concerning people's disappointment at Trump and Clinton not tackling various points or covering certain issues deeply.

Seems to me It's another reason why it's good to have 3rd parties involved.
They have vested interest in hard digging and questioning the motives of Both Trump and Clinton. Also for Stein, Johnson and the others it's a chance to get on the map somehow.
But as it stands Trump and Clinton seem to be satisfied playing it safe and the Networks have ZERO problem playing along with that standard establishment option.
Softball questions, never dealing with root issues, or questionable allegiances, actions or history. But plenty of questions about what's your favorite foods.

[Kathianne]

Concerning people's disappointment at Trump and Clinton not tackling various points or covering certain issues deeply.

Seems to me It's another reason why it's good to have 3rd parties involved.
They have vested interest in hard digging and questioning the motives of Both Trump and Clinton. Also for Stein, Johnson and the others it's a chance to get on the map somehow.
But as it stands Trump and Clinton seem to be satisfied playing it safe and the Networks have ZERO problem playing along with that standard establishment option.
Softball questions, never dealing with root issues, or questionable allegiances, actions or history. But plenty of questions about what's your favorite foods.


Hey, it wouldn't matter if the thing is rigged with a defective microphone!

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/09/donald-trump-microphone-debate-228754

[pete311]

Concerning people's disappointment at Trump and Clinton not tackling various points or covering certain issues deeply.

Seems to me It's another reason why it's good to have 3rd parties involved.
They have vested interest in hard digging and questioning the motives of Both Trump and Clinton. Also for Stein, Johnson and the others it's a chance to get on the map somehow.
But as it stands Trump and Clinton seem to be satisfied playing it safe and the Networks have ZERO problem playing along with that standard establishment option.
Softball questions, never dealing with root issues, or questionable allegiances, actions or history. But plenty of questions about what's your favorite foods.

Agreed, Stein or Johnson would have been able to debate Hilary more competently. Trump was nothing but bravado. It's really really pathetic.

[jimnyc]

Agreed, Stein or Johnson would have been able to debate Hilary more competently. Trump was nothing but bravado. It's really really pathetic.

A shame that the American public haven't much of an interest in someone like Johnson, and snubbed him the more they got to know him. :dunno:

[pete311]

Does Trump not know what the word "cyber" means by itself?

[pete311]

A shame that the American public haven't much of an interest in someone like Johnson, and snubbed him the more they got to know him. :dunno:

The political machine ate him up. No mystery there. If you're not a republican or liberal you got no chance, ever.

[jimnyc]

I gotta say, he does seem to think that everyone is out to get him somehow. At the same time, Holt did go after him a little different regarding Iraq, whereas he really didn't go after Clinton really at all regarding the tough questions. So no, I really don't think he was hostile towards Trump, I think he should have been MORE hostile towards Hillary.

-----

Trump on Debate: I Did Well; Holt Asked Some 'Hostile Questions'

Donald Trump Tuesday morning said he feels he did "really well" in Monday night's debate, but said he felt he had some "hostile questions," complained that he had experienced some issues with his microphone during the event at Hofstra University, and slammed a former Miss Universe pageant winner Hillary Clinton had referenced at the end of the debate.

"I thought it went really well," Trump told Fox News' "Fox & Friends" program. "I had some hostile questions. That was okay. It was the debate of debates."

Trump said he would give NBC News' Lester Holt, the moderator of the first debate, "about a C or C-plus" rating, and he thinks the anchorman did a good job overall, but said Holt did not ask Clinton many questions that he thought should have been asked.

"Well, he didn't ask her about the emails at all," said Trump. "He didn't ask her about her scandals. He didn't ask her about the Benghazi deal that she destroyed. He didn't ask her about a lot of things she should have been asked about. There's no question about it. He didn't ask about her foundation."

But still, he didn't think Holt did a bad job, even if he did hit him hard on the last four questions of the debate.

"They were leaving all her little goodies out," said Trump. "I was asked about my tax returns, which I've told about 500 times. But I think I really did well, when we were asked normal questions. I think I did really well in answering those questions, but those [other] questions are not answerable in a positive light."

Further, Trump said he could have hit Clinton with the scandals concerning her husband's infidelities, after her attacks on him about his statements about women, but he didn't do so because daughter Chelsea was in the room.

"I think I did the right thing," said Trump. "It's not worth a point. I didn't feel comfortable doing it with Chelsea in the room. I think Chelsea is a fine young lady. I didn't like doing it with Chelsea in the room."

Trump said he also wishes he'd brought up the Benghazi, Libya attacks.

"Don't forget, you are asked a question as to progress or something, and it's hard to get off to Benghazi sometimes the way the questions were framed," said Trump. "You start off in a totally — the opposite of Benghazi, and so Benghazi can't get brought up, but it was a very interesting evening."

Further, he said he thought the first half of the evening went well, but "in the end, they start bringing up 45-year-old lawsuits," said Trump, and Holt "leaned over to that [left] lane, but I don't know, every poll — I won slate. I won Drudge [Report], I got almost 90 percent of the vote in the poll. I won Time magazine. I won CBS.

"I won every single poll other than CNN and not many people are watching CNN. I tell you what, that place is a disaster. The people they have on those shows, they are third rate talent as announcers on that show. The moderators. They are terrible."

http://www.newsmax.com/Headline/Trump-Debate-Lester-Holt-Hostile-Questions/2016/09/27/id/750341/

[jimnyc]

Does Trump not know what the word "cyber" means by itself?

He should just ask Anthony Wiener, who can be a professional "cyber sex" junkie! :laugh:

[jimnyc]

Is this spot on? On the up and up? Because if so, it would say a lot about his character. Or is he just BS'n?

-----

Why Trump decided not to bring up Monica Lewinsky at debate

Donald Trump said he held back from bringing up Monica Lewinsky at the Monday presidential debate — because he saw Chelsea Clinton in the audience.

“When she hit me at the end with the women, I was going to hit her with her husband’s women and I decided I shouldn’t do it because her daughter was in the room,” Trump said Tuesday morning in a phone interview on Fox News’ “Fox & Friends.”

Clinton had taken aim at Trump by quoting sexist comments he’d made in the past.

“I didn’t feel comfortable doing it with Chelsea in the room. I think Chelsea is a fine young lady,” Trump said in the morning-after interview.

After the debate, former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani, who is advising Trump, said the Republican nominee was going to call Clinton “phony as a feminist.”

http://nypost.com/2016/09/27/why-trump-decided-not-bring-up-lewinsky-at-debate/

[Black Diamond]

Is this spot on? On the up and up? Because if so, it would say a lot about his character. Or is he just BS'n?

-----

Why Trump decided not to bring up Monica Lewinsky at debate

Donald Trump said he held back from bringing up Monica Lewinsky at the Monday presidential debate — because he saw Chelsea Clinton in the audience.

“When she hit me at the end with the women, I was going to hit her with her husband’s women and I decided I shouldn’t do it because her daughter was in the room,” Trump said Tuesday morning in a phone interview on Fox News’ “Fox & Friends.”

Clinton had taken aim at Trump by quoting sexist comments he’d made in the past.

“I didn’t feel comfortable doing it with Chelsea in the room. I think Chelsea is a fine young lady,” Trump said in the morning-after interview.

After the debate, former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani, who is advising Trump, said the Republican nominee was going to call Clinton “phony as a feminist.”

http://nypost.com/2016/09/27/why-trump-decided-not-bring-up-lewinsky-at-debate/

Coulda shoulda woulda

I hope a lot of people watch the other two debates

[Black Diamond]

If he'd gone after Hillary the way he went after Jeb, We would be having a different conversation this morning

[Abbey Marie]

FYI, my BIL in NH told me Hillary is running tons of ads with the "Trump demeans women" theme. Trump wasn't exaggerating about how much she is spending to trash him.

And in that regard, I thought that after missing a golden opportunity to rip Hillary about the emails, the worst thing Trump did was say that Hillary "doesn't have the look" to be President. He tried like mad to get out of it by repeating she doesn't have the stamina, but the damage was done. I expect Hillary to play that up now.

[Abbey Marie]

If he'd gone after Hillary the way he went after Jeb, We would be having a different conversation this morning

While I would have enjoyed that, I'm not so sure. He has to tread carefully because she's a woman. And on top of that, she has him on the defensive because of his comments about women over the years. That stuff resonates with lots of women.

[Black Diamond]

While I would have enjoyed that, I'm not so sure. He has to tread carefully because she's a woman. And on top of that, she has him on the defensive because of his comments about women over the years. That stuff resonates with lots of women.

If what you say is true, we may be in trouble.

[Abbey Marie]

If what you say is true, we may be in trouble.

I think it is, and I tragically think we are. I think the women on this board are somewhat unusual politically.

[Perianne]

I think it is, and I tragically think we are. I think the women on this board are somewhat unusual politically.

Perhaps. But the women on this board are white women.

[Black Diamond]

I think it is, and I tragically think we are. I think the women on this board are somewhat unusual politically.

I mean if he can't push her back when she hits him, what chance does could he have?

[revelarts]

Democracy NOW
expanding the debate Jill Stein joins the debate

http://www.democracynow.org/2016/9/27/expanding_the_debate_jill_stein_debates

[aboutime]

Democracy NOW
expanding the debate Jill Stein joins the debate

http://www.democracynow.org/2016/9/27/expanding_the_debate_jill_stein_debates



More BS rev. Unless Stein was actually there, on the stage with Clinton, and Trump. The responses could have come from ANYONE with a keyboard who had any kind of opinion on how to sound, and pretend they are smarter than OBAMA.

[fj1200]

Interesting tidbit if true: Perot would not have been included in the first debate at least in '92 under the current rules established by the commission run by the two parties. Hmm.

https://i.guim.co.uk/img/static/sys-images/Global/content/icons/2012/5/3/1336081889832/1992Gallup_406.jpg?w=620&q=55&auto=format&usm=12&fit=max&

[revelarts]

Constitution Party Candidates response to Debate


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uAW77yW0x6Y&feature=youtu.be