Tonight's debate

[Abbey Marie]

Kudos to Chris Wallace for making this debate about policies.

[Black Diamond]

Kudos to Chris Wallace for making this debate about policies.

What do you think?

[Abbey Marie]

What do you think?

About?

[Kathianne]

"I will not add a penny to the debt."

"Nobody has more respect for women than I do."

[Black Diamond]

About?

Who won?

[Kathianne]

Chris Wallace did a wonderful job as moderator.

I actually thought Trump had his best performance, but messed it up big time with his answer about accepting results and the petty dig at the end, "What a nasty woman.'

Those two will negate all the improvements I'm guessing.

[aboutime]

My wife and I really got tired quickly of the SMILE, and the endless FILIBUSTERING, Rehearsed speeches done by the WWoTW (Wicked Witch of The World).
Glad to see Donald almost bite his tongue, and not fall for her LIES again.

[Elessar]

My wife and I really got tired quickly of the SMILE, and the endless FILIBUSTERING, Rehearsed speeches done by the WWoTW (Wicked Witch of The World).
Glad to see Donald almost bite his tongue, and not fall for her LIES again.


I hate her smug smirk!

[Abbey Marie]

Who won?

I'm sure it depends who you ask. I though they both did well.

[Bilgerat]

Chris Wallace did a wonderful job as moderator.

I actually thought Trump had his best performance, but messed it up big time with his answer about accepting results and the petty dig at the end, "What a nasty woman.'

Those two will negate all the improvements I'm guessing.

And the sad part of this is that's the truth that was spoken

[Drummond]

Chris Wallace did a wonderful job as moderator.

I actually thought Trump had his best performance, but messed it up big time with his answer about accepting results and the petty dig at the end, "What a nasty woman.'

Those two will negate all the improvements I'm guessing.

I think that Trump's not necessarily accepting the outcome of the election is no less than understandable, even logical in the extreme. There can be no doubt that he's been subject to a dirty tricks campaign. And I understand that there's new controversy about voting fraud ?

Why, in those conditions, SHOULD Trump accept an electoral process and conduct that's been heavily weighted against him ? Fair electioneering ... fine ... the result should be accepted. But Trump hasn't been treated fairly. So why should he infer fairness in any result ?

Because his opposition require it ?

How convenient.

[gabosaurus]

I heard that Trump mentioned bad ombres last night. How did that subject get brought up?

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-XIIGa2smby0/UhZsZXM-h6I/AAAAAAAAAec/foQ2_I-lrJQ/s1600/IMG_0430.JPG

[fj1200]

I think that Trump's not necessarily accepting the outcome of the election is no less than understandable, even logical in the extreme. There can be no doubt that he's been subject to a dirty tricks campaign. And I understand that there's new controversy about voting fraud ?

Why, in those conditions, SHOULD Trump accept an electoral process and conduct that's been heavily weighted against him ? Fair electioneering ... fine ... the result should be accepted. But Trump hasn't been treated fairly. So why should he infer fairness in any result ?

Because his opposition require it ?

How convenient.

Because any fraud will have a near zero impact on the results and at this point makes him look like a sour grapes complainer.

[jimnyc]

Because any fraud will have a near zero impact on the results and at this point makes him look like a sour grapes complainer.

There has already been fraud found in various states. There is obvious fraud/bias with the media (collusion), collusion and issues between Hillary and the DOJ and the FBI.

Someone complaining about that is hardly sour grapes.

[Drummond]

I think that Trump's not necessarily accepting the outcome of the election is no less than understandable, even logical in the extreme. There can be no doubt that he's been subject to a dirty tricks campaign. And I understand that there's new controversy about voting fraud ?

Why, in those conditions, SHOULD Trump accept an electoral process and conduct that's been heavily weighted against him ? Fair electioneering ... fine ... the result should be accepted. But Trump hasn't been treated fairly. So why should he infer fairness in any result ?

Because his opposition require it ?

How convenient.

Right now, this moment, as I type ... on Sky News, I see a fresh allegation of sexual misconduct being made against Donald Trump by a 'tearful woman', who protests about how Trump 'violated her' - this at a press conference. This is happening, 'conveniently', the day after the final Presidential debate.

So far as I can tell, it's a fresh allegation.

It's an allegation which wasn't voiced much earlier during the election campaign ... there was only silence at that time. Silence, still, when Trump won the GOP nomination. Only now, mere days before the election ... is this being aired.

It presumably 'didn't occur' to this latest accuser to speak up, until now ...

How come ?

And these AREN'T meant to upset the election result, and radically so, in favour of Trump's opposition ??

[jimnyc]

And these AREN'T meant to upset the election result, and radically so, in favour of Trump's opposition ??

Of course they are. Most see it for what it is.

[Drummond]

Of course they are. Most see it for what it is.

Jim, I sincerely hope you're right. Because according to the poll results which our media are broadcasting, there's been a clear falling-off of support for Trump in the past week or so. My impression is that his opposition are trying to build on that effect - and with timing that makes it impossible to disprove such allegations in the short time between now and the election date.

In my view, people would have to be remarkably stupid not to question the timing of all of this and find it highly suspicious. I hope they DO see all this for what it is.

[Gunny]

Of course they are. Most see it for what it is.

I see it as usual Clinton poor judgement. She's fishing way too hard for the female vote. I would consider her an insul;t to the gender was I a female. Anyone wanting to be represented by her lacks critical thinking skills.

[Abbey Marie]

I see it as usual Clinton poor judgement. She's fishing way too hard for the female vote. I would consider her an insul;t to the gender was I a female. Anyone wanting to be represented by her lacks critical thinking skills.

Like many shrill hypocritical feminists, she is indeed an insult to my gender.

[Gunny]

Like many shrill hypocritical feminists, she is indeed an insult to my gender.

What as it the left always called Bush? A "flip-flopper"? Hillary's been a straight up hypocrite on feminism.

[fj1200]

There has already been fraud found in various states. There is obvious fraud/bias with the media (collusion), collusion and issues between Hillary and the DOJ and the FBI.

Someone complaining about that is hardly sour grapes.

There will be near zero effect and he's complaining when he hasn't even lost yet.

[jimnyc]

There will be near zero effect and he's complaining when he hasn't even lost yet.

Whether it changes the election or not is NOT a reason to not complain and/or ignore the fraud and bias and collusion.

[fj1200]

Whether it changes the election or not is NOT a reason to not complain and/or ignore the fraud and bias and collusion.

Not being seen as a sour-grapes loser before the election happens is a reason to ignore it or complain. It would be something for others who are supporting him to complain about... if he hasn't alienated all of them yet.

[jimnyc]

Not being seen as a sour-grapes loser before the election happens is a reason to ignore it or complain.

Well, perhaps the folks with a candidate with laughable numbers see it as sour grapes - I see it as him speaking the truth to the public about the collusion, bias and fraud. He SHOULD be speaking about them if they are true, in which they are. The amount of it has nothing to do with it. But even with the amounts, the amount of bias from the media is now seen by the world, and proven via wikileaks. The collusion with her campaign and the DOJ and FBI has been proven. Her lying and breaking the law and the covering up and looking the other way have all been exposed. He looks just fine to me in speaking about all aspects of these things. I fully agree with him with his rigging statements. If those things don't bother you and you think pointing our his "sour grapes" is more important... well then tell me something I didn't already know. :rolleyes:

[fj1200]

Well, perhaps the folks with a candidate with laughable numbers see it as sour grapes - I see it as him speaking the truth to the public about the collusion, bias and fraud. He SHOULD be speaking about them if they are true, in which they are. The amount of it has nothing to do with it. But even with the amounts, the amount of bias from the media is now seen by the world, and proven via wikileaks. The collusion with her campaign and the DOJ and FBI has been proven. Her lying and breaking the law and the covering up and looking the other way have all been exposed. He looks just fine to me in speaking about all aspects of these things. I fully agree with him with his rigging statements. If those things don't bother you and you think pointing our his "sour grapes" is more important... well then tell me something I didn't already know. :rolleyes:

She sucks, so that's not even a consideration. If you want to be President, act like a President and not a petulant child who threatens to take his toys and go home if things don't go his way.

[Abbey Marie]

Let's face it @jimnyc (http://www.debatepolicy.com/member.php?u=1) , Trump Hater Syndrome is real. There is nothing the man can do that won't be deemed a big negative. Even helping expose election fraud and corruption. And nothing Johnson can do that won't be rationalized.

[jimnyc]

Let's face it @jimnyc (http://www.debatepolicy.com/member.php?u=1) , Trump Hater Syndrome is real. There is nothing the man can do that won't be deemed a big negative. Even helping expose election fraud and corruption. And nothing Johnson can do that won't be rationalized.

Yups, why some are more interested in lame things and stick their heads in the sand or look the other way with the fraud, collusion, bias and lying.

Appearing presidential is more important to some than those things. Not me.

[Black Diamond]

Yups, why some are more interested in lame things and stick their heads in the sand or look the other way with the fraud, collusion, bias and lying.

Appearing presidential is more important to some than those things. Not me.
It's been one giant Aleppo moment for about six months now.

[Gunny]

Yups, why some are more interested in lame things and stick their heads in the sand or look the other way with the fraud, collusion, bias and lying.

Appearing presidential is more important to some than those things. Not me.

There's ONE thing you can't accuse me of. I've been calling for her lame ass since Monicagate shifted focus from Whitewater and let her off the hook. Any other wife would have been bitching her ass off. Call it what you want. Bill was a lame duck by then anyway and I suspect(ed) it was a politically strategic move.

[Black Diamond]

There's ONE thing you can't accuse me of. I've been calling for her lame ass since Monicagate shifted focus from Whitewater and let her off the hook. Any other wife would have been bitching her ass off. Call it what you want. Bill was a lame duck by then anyway and I suspect(ed) it was a politically strategic move.
Their relationship has always been a political marriage.

[jimnyc]

There's ONE thing you can't accuse me of. I've been calling for her lame ass since Monicagate shifted focus from Whitewater and let her off the hook. Any other wife would have been bitching her ass off. Call it what you want. Bill was a lame duck by then anyway and I suspect(ed) it was a politically strategic move.

Other than the foamers, most were against Hillary. Other than the foamers, most remain against Hillary. Speaking of the forum of course, which is a minuscule number, but still... I don't always necessarily think folks are letting her off the hook, but she gets off the hook anyway. There are unfortunately quite a few ways to let a greasy and nasty fish off your hook.

Strategically speaking though (just stealing your word) the right or whatever you want to call it, are giving an assist to Hillary. Even if we all agreed to disagree and start with a clean slate from the past - we are left with 19 days and a vote. Do we want Trump, or Clinton. A vote for another candidate is then one less vote in his column. That's just pure math, not pointing fingers. Add them all up. No one knows whether that would alter the election results or not at this point, but it's definitely not helping. The ability to keep Hillary, and everything she wants and has even stated she wants to do once in office, is still there. I have no doubt that if everyone on the right had now gotten together, he would win. I'm sure many on the left feel and will vote similarly.

And then you would have Trump for 4 years, and if so horridly un-presidential, he would obviously be a one term president. Or it could be Hillary, which if so horribly corrupt as many say and have seen, would likely be a one term president.

I just wonder who would do more damage, if any, during their time in office. Whether that be illegally as some wonder, or just via their shitty plans.

[Abbey Marie]

Their relationship has always been a political marriage.


Or mirage.

[Abbey Marie]

Other than the foamers, most were against Hillary. Other than the foamers, most remain against Hillary. Speaking of the forum of course, which is a minuscule number, but still... I don't always necessarily think folks are letting her off the hook, but she gets off the hook anyway. There are unfortunately quite a few ways to let a greasy and nasty fish off your hook.

Strategically speaking though (just stealing your word) the right or whatever you want to call it, are giving an assist to Hillary. Even if we all agreed to disagree and start with a clean slate from the past - we are left with 19 days and a vote. Do we want Trump, or Clinton. A vote for another candidate is then one less vote in his column. That's just pure math, not pointing fingers. Add them all up. No one knows whether that would alter the election results or not at this point, but it's definitely not helping. The ability to keep Hillary, and everything she wants and has even stated she wants to do once in office, is still there. I have no doubt that if everyone on the right had now gotten together, he would win. I'm sure many on the left feel and will vote similarly.

And then you would have Trump for 4 years, and if so horridly un-presidential, he would obviously be a one term president. Or it could be Hillary, which if so horribly corrupt as many say and have seen, would likely be a one term president.

I just wonder who would do more damage, if any, during their time in office. Whether that be illegally as some wonder, or just via their shitty plans.


Anyone who could vote for a woman who straight up says she is for partial birth abortion should be deeply ashamed. I am really beyond understanding people who can turn the other way knowing that alone, not even counting the sheer degree of corruption she is guilty of.

[Black Diamond]

Or mirage.

Is Chelsea proof they consummated?

[jimnyc]

Anyone who could vote for a woman who straight up says she is for partial birth abortion should be deeply ashamed. I am really beyond understanding people who can turn the other way knowing that alone, not even counting the sheer degree of corruption.

Agreed.

I think a lot of folks are looking for their ideal candidate. Perhaps that candidate didn't make it this far. They are then picking out the best of the 4, the one who they think mostly sides with what they are looking for. All fine up until that point - until we unfortunately realize that taking that avenue will likely help Hillary in the long run.

[Black Diamond]

Anyone who could vote for a woman who straight up says she is for partial birth abortion should be deeply ashamed. I am really beyond understanding people who can turn the other way knowing that alone, not even counting the sheer degree of corruption she is guilty of.

But but but..

Grab her by the..

[Abbey Marie]

Agreed.

I think a lot of folks are looking for their ideal candidate. Perhaps that candidate didn't make it this far. They are then picking out the best of the 4, the one who they think mostly sides with what they are looking for. All fine up until that point - until we unfortunately realize that taking that avenue will likely help Hillary in the long run.

She said she believes it (severing the spine and killing an almost-born baby) is Constitutionally protected, and she intends to appoint Justices who feel that way, too.

Dear God, what more do people need to hear?

[Black Diamond]

She said she believes it (severing the spine and killing an almost-born baby) is Constitutionally protected, and she intends to appoint Justices who feel that way, too.

Dear God, what more do people need to hear?

Obama voted against the born alive bill. That should have been enough.

[jimnyc]

She said she believes it (severing the spine and killing an almost-born baby) is Constitutionally protected, and she intends to appoint Justices who feel that way, too.

Dear God, what more do people need to hear?

I said that a long time back that a few of her issues alone should make it imperative that we go with Trump or WHOEVER were to take the nomination. I still say, the SC and guns alone are enough, for me at least. She further convinced me last night that the SC is THE most important issue going on here, and will alter a generation at minimum. She admits she wants changes with gun regulations.

And yes, while I very rarely get into the subject, for obvious reasons -- she is VERY CLEAR about where she stands on this issue. And like you said, she will be SEEKING justices out that have common ground with her. Yeck.

[gabosaurus]

Laughing more than a bit over this debate cartoon from The Guardian. :cool:

https://i.imgflip.com/1cpicz.jpg

[aboutime]

http://icansayit.com/images/pba.gif

[jimnyc]

^^^ She wouldn't care either way, regardless of her personal stance and feelings, so long as the criminal gets in office.

[Black Diamond]

http://icansayit.com/images/pba.gif

Yikes.

[aboutime]

Yikes.


Black Diamond. That's only ONE way it is done. There's another method where they DELIVER the baby, just before it would normally be delivered by the mother...head first, and they puncture the head in much the same way. Problem is...many delivered this way ACTUALLY TAKE THEIR FIRST BREATH. Which makes them viable Human beings who feel pain. BUT..well, you decide what that means.

[fj1200]

Let's face it @jimnyc (http://www.debatepolicy.com/member.php?u=1) , Trump Hater Syndrome is real. There is nothing the man can do that won't be deemed a big negative. Even helping expose election fraud and corruption. And nothing Johnson can do that won't be rationalized.

When he does things that are big negatives they get pointed out as a big negative. I also haven't seen anyone rationalizing Johnson lately, he lost a huge opportunity. He's still the best of the three though.


Yups, why some are more interested in lame things and stick their heads in the sand or look the other way with the fraud, collusion, bias and lying.

Appearing presidential is more important to some than those things. Not me.

Seeing what you want to see? In a thread about trump don't be surprised if people talk about trump.

[Gunny]

Yikes.

I WAS eating.

[Bilgerat]

Is Chelsea proof they consummated?


Not without a DNA test

[jimnyc]

Seeing what you want to see? In a thread about trump don't be surprised if people talk about trump.

And in a thread about the DEBATE, one would think the subject would be both. And again, some would think that fraud, collusion and bias would be more important than appearing presidential. Or that at least the other things would merit a mention. Guess not.

[Gunny]

And in a thread about the DEBATE, one would think the subject would be both. And again, some would think that fraud, collusion and bias would be more important than appearing presidential. Or that at least the other things would merit a mention. Guess not.

The bias can't be denied, but I will question some people's choice of enemies. The enemy here is the media. The question is how to do defeat it. It controls everything we see or hear. Worse, it controls everything a bunch of un-educated do-nothings see and hear. We live in a society of people who can't or won't think for themselves.

Sure the left laid off until Trump became THE nominee and they've laid down a barrage of negativity Patton would be proud of since.

You can't beat an enemy that gets to dictate the rules.

[jimnyc]

The bias can't be denied, but I will question some people's choice of enemies. The enemy here is the media. The question is how to do defeat it. It controls everything we see or hear. Worse, it controls everything a bunch of un-educated do-nothings see and hear. We live in a society of people who can't or won't think for themselves.

Sure the left laid off until Trump became THE nominee and they've laid down a barrage of negativity Patton would be proud of since.

You can't beat an enemy that gets to dictate the rules.

No doubt.

I think myself, and even Trump, when speaking of "rigging" have been speaking of the media, and of course the FBI/DOJ, and the continuing leaked emails that show just how the Clinton campaign and others and the lengths they will go to in order to place her in office. I know myself, I'm not saying that the machines are rigged or the "process" as some would put it. But one would need to be a twice lobotomized monkey to not see the media bias. One would need to be extremely naive and in denial to not have seen the collusion that was put out there between her campaign and the media. Also naive to not have seen the collusion with her campaign and the DOJ and the FBI. And then yes, there IS fraudulent activity taking place at polling places. There are apparently millions of registered dead voters.

Who is this guy? J. Christian Adams, who was the Voting Section Attorney at the US Department of Justice.

Election Expert: There Are 4 Million Dead People on US Voter Rolls


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

[gabosaurus]

The new generation (25 and under) could care less about what the mainstream media says or do. They get most of their information (for better or worse) from social media. That is why Trump's twitter feed gets so much attention. He uses it quite well.
Bernie Sanders was a master of using social media. That allowed him to push his message across despite his lack of financial resources. I am guessing that Sanders and Chelsea Clinton have helped Hillary tremendously in that regard.

If there is one thing that has hurt Trump the most, it is his lack of preparation for debates and personal appearances. He has relied to much on charisma and repeating the same message. That is a great way to stroke the faithful, but it does little to attract new followers. Even Trump's most trusted aides admit that he is too stubborn and obstinate.

There is no doubt that Hillary's camp is conducting a full frontal assault in the dirty tricks department. I warned you of this months ago. If you find someone has a closet full of dirty secrets, you do your best to empty is.
Trump's people are doing pretty much the same with Wikileaks.

As Gunny will agree, all's fair in politics and war. There is no use having a weapons advantage if you don't use it.

[jimnyc]

There is no doubt that Hillary's camp is conducting a full frontal assault in the dirty tricks department. I warned you of this months ago. If you find someone has a closet full of dirty secrets, you do your best to empty is.
Trump's people are doing pretty much the same with Wikileaks.

No doubt that the Clinton's lead in the attack department. But short of any proof at all - I don't see the Trump campaign behind the Wikileaks ordeal. Hell, weren't we told that it was Russia, even by Hillary herself?

[Gunny]

No doubt.

I think myself, and even Trump, when speaking of "rigging" have been speaking of the media, and of course the FBI/DOJ, and the continuing leaked emails that show just how the Clinton campaign and others and the lengths they will go to in order to place her in office. I know myself, I'm not saying that the machines are rigged or the "process" as some would put it. But one would need to be a twice lobotomized monkey to not see the media bias. One would need to be extremely naive and in denial to not have seen the collusion that was put out there between her campaign and the media. Also naive to not have seen the collusion with her campaign and the DOJ and the FBI. And then yes, there IS fraudulent activity taking place at polling places. There are apparently millions of registered dead voters.

Who is this guy? J. Christian Adams, who was the Voting Section Attorney at the US Department of Justice.

Election Expert: There Are 4 Million Dead People on US Voter Rolls


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

i'n registered to vote in 2 states. Not that hard. Mine is by circumstance, but it is not a far stretch from there to living on the borders of 2 or more states and register in each one nor would I put it past some of these clowns to do it. The left doesn't care how it wins.

NBC and it's thousands of affiliates has a Hillary commercial every break. I think I've seen s maybe 3 Trump adds total. The reporters can't even say "it's raining" without a dig at Trump.

The local dem put flyers on every door "Free Ride to the Polls" This ain't NYC. There are 3 cars in every driveway here. So which demograph you think they're pandering to?

I figured out how to torture YOU jimnyc Put you in a hospital with 5 channels -- 3 of which are network TV -- and make you drink hospital (alleged) coffee for 3 months. :laugh:

[Black Diamond]

i'n registered to vote in 2 states. Not that hard. Mine is by circumstance, but it is not a far stretch from there to living on the borders of 2 or more states and register in each one nor would I put it past some of these clowns to do it. The left doesn't care how it wins.

NBC and it's thousands of affiliates has a Hillary commercial every break. I think I've seen s maybe 3 Trump adds total. The reporters can't even say "it's raining" without a dig at Trump.

The local dem put flyers on every door "Free Ride to the Polls" This ain't NYC. There are 3 cars in every driveway here. So which demograph you think they're pandering to?

I figured out how to torture YOU jimnyc Put you in a hospital with 5 channels -- 3 of which are network TV -- and make you drink hospital (alleged) coffee for 3 months. :laugh:

Please vote in both. :cool:

[Gunny]

The new generation (25 and under) could care less about what the mainstream media says or do. They get most of their information (for better or worse) from social media. That is why Trump's twitter feed gets so much attention. He uses it quite well.
Bernie Sanders was a master of using social media. That allowed him to push his message across despite his lack of financial resources. I am guessing that Sanders and Chelsea Clinton have helped Hillary tremendously in that regard.

If there is one thing that has hurt Trump the most, it is his lack of preparation for debates and personal appearances. He has relied to much on charisma and repeating the same message. That is a great way to stroke the faithful, but it does little to attract new followers. Even Trump's most trusted aides admit that he is too stubborn and obstinate.

There is no doubt that Hillary's camp is conducting a full frontal assault in the dirty tricks department. I warned you of this months ago. If you find someone has a closet full of dirty secrets, you do your best to empty is.
Trump's people are doing pretty much the same with Wikileaks.

As Gunny will agree, all's fair in politics and war. There is no use having a weapons advantage if you don't use it.

Bullshit. They can't function without the media. They believe nothing but he said/she said crap regardless the media source.

And you would be o so wrong about Gunny, I believe warriors fight warriors by the rules. The rules change when liars and lawyers who can't fight backdoor them via punk legislation. Everything that is wrong in this world and has been is because of THAT right down through the centuries. Only do-nothings, liars losers and users need stupid rules. Every issue the left has his contrived BS because y'all can't handle your own business.

And you're on the brink of losing another democratic society because of it. Biting the hand that feeds. You wimps didn't make this country, the strong did. Your mistake is by the time y'all figure it out it'll be too late for you.

[fj1200]

And in a thread about the DEBATE, one would think the subject would be both. And again, some would think that fraud, collusion and bias would be more important than appearing presidential. Or that at least the other things would merit a mention. Guess not.

True statement is true. hillary sucks as we all know, trump isn't much better IMO.


The bias can't be denied...

I don't think anyone is denying it. The problem is a candidate who strengthens their hand.

[jimnyc]

True statement is true. hillary sucks as we all know, trump isn't much better IMO.

Then don't you think everyone should not only be concerned with Trump apparently not looking presidential, as you put it - but just as concerned - if not more - with the things also brought up in the debate - which was the fraud, the collusion and the bias? And then when the subject of this thread is about that debate, I simply would have thought that folks would have been equally interested in her at the debate, and not just Trump's appearance.

[fj1200]

Then don't you think everyone should not only be concerned with Trump apparently not looking presidential, as you put it - but just as concerned - if not more - with the things also brought up in the debate - which was the fraud, the collusion and the bias? And then when the subject of this thread is about that debate, I simply would have thought that folks would have been equally interested in her at the debate, and not just Trump's appearance.

Am I now required to comment on every aspect of every question of the debate? I made a comment I chose to make.

[jimnyc]

Am I now required to comment on every aspect of every question of the debate? I made a comment I chose to make.

Required? Of course not. But when someone ignores criminal actions of one candidate, and then the worst bias ever - and their main concern is really only about how the other candidate didn't 'appear' presidential like, it simply makes me wonder about their priorities is all. But the wondering gets less and less, and less and less shocking coming from you.

[fj1200]

Required? Of course not. But when someone ignores criminal actions of one candidate, and then the worst bias ever - and their main concern is really only about how the other candidate didn't 'appear' presidential like, it simply makes me wonder about their priorities is all. But the wondering gets less and less, and less and less shocking coming from you.

Whew! I'm also not ignoring anything. And if you'd really been paying attention my suggestion was directed at how he could actually be elected by focusing on what's important.

[jimnyc]

Whew! I'm also not ignoring anything. And if you'd really been paying attention my suggestion was directed at how he could actually be elected by focusing on what's important.

I pay attention, and you know I do. You just don't like it when I point out the negative shit.

I think speaking of illegal immigration is important, in which he does. I think speaking of the SC, both what he would nominate, and what Hillary would nominate, is very important, and he does.

And now I think its extremely important to discuss the things I'm pointing out, the fraud/collusion/bias. The people need to know everything that is going on. It's hardly on the nightly news that many rely on. And not everyone is online all the time like many of us.

And while it changes a little from rally to rally, he does touch upon many many subjects.

But I disagree about what's important at certain times. When he is in front of the cameras and millions and millions watching - while I want the "important" to be discussed about policy to an extent - I also think it's extremely "important" to use that time to speak of Hillary's emails, the Podesta emails, Brazile... I would even rather he did much more at the last debate, but Fox was extremely good at keeping things on topic and not allowing them much room to go off topic.

[Abbey Marie]

I pay attention, and you know I do. You just don't like it when I point out the negative shit.

I think speaking of illegal immigration is important, in which he does. I think speaking of the SC, both what he would nominate, and what Hillary would nominate, is very important, and he does.

And now I think its extremely important to discuss the things I'm pointing out, the fraud/collusion/bias. The people need to know everything that is going on. It's hardly on the nightly news that many rely on. And not everyone is online all the time like many of us.

And while it changes a little from rally to rally, he does touch upon many many subjects.

But I disagree about what's important at certain times. When he is in front of the cameras and millions and millions watching - while I want the "important" to be discussed about policy to an extent - I also think it's extremely "important" to use that time to speak of Hillary's emails, the Podesta emails, Brazile... I would even rather he did much more at the last debate, but Fox was extremely good at keeping things on topic and not allowing them much room to go off topic.


There's so much "important" stuff it would take all day to discuss it all. Including voting fraud. I think he did discuss a lot of important stuff. As much as time and Chris Matthews allowed.

[Kathianne]

The bias can't be denied, but I will question some people's choice of enemies. The enemy here is the media. The question is how to do defeat it. It controls everything we see or hear. Worse, it controls everything a bunch of un-educated do-nothings see and hear. We live in a society of people who can't or won't think for themselves.

Sure the left laid off until Trump became THE nominee and they've laid down a barrage of negativity Patton would be proud of since.

You can't beat an enemy that gets to dictate the rules.

I agree, though keep in mind how 'the media' gets paid. Act accordingly.

[fj1200]

I pay attention, and you know I do. You just don't like it when I point out the negative shit.

:confused:


I think speaking of illegal immigration is important, in which he does. I think speaking of the SC, both what he would nominate, and what Hillary would nominate, is very important, and he does.

And now I think its extremely important to discuss the things I'm pointing out, the fraud/collusion/bias. The people need to know everything that is going on. It's hardly on the nightly news that many rely on. And not everyone is online all the time like many of us.

And while it changes a little from rally to rally, he does touch upon many many subjects.

But I disagree about what's important at certain times. When he is in front of the cameras and millions and millions watching - while I want the "important" to be discussed about policy to an extent - I also think it's extremely "important" to use that time to speak of Hillary's emails, the Podesta emails, Brazile... I would even rather he did much more at the last debate, but Fox was extremely good at keeping things on topic and not allowing them much room to go off topic.

And he should talk about that while sounding like he has the ability to make cogent points.

[aboutime]

:confused:



And he should talk about that while sounding like he has the ability to make cogent points.



fj. You talk like that to everyone who isn't YOU. Patronizing is your game to everyone, since you think ONLY YOU are smarter than everyone else you LOOK DOWN UPON.

There are other names for people like you. But I won't stoop, or bend over backwards to lower myself to your arrogant, selfish, frustrated level here. YOU are doing a great job of that...all by yourself.