Hillary - Trash First Debate

[baseline bum]

How do you mean? If she wins then it does matter. :lol




I mean I expect this to continue being a roller coaster.

[vy65]

Actually the point about reassuring our allies wasn't meaningless. The discussion of trickle down tax plans and him hiding his returns wasn't meaningless. I imagine her discussion on race will alienate a lot of white boomer males but resonate with other demographics.

I get why you want to dismiss the debate as meaningless because your preference got his ass handed to him though.

What was so meaningful about either of those points you mentioned? Saying trickle down doesn't work or "hey allies, don't be scared" doesn't mean anything.

I hate both candidates equally but for different reasons, so I don't know where you're getting this bit about a preference. And if you're insinuating I'm a boomer than crofl

[spurraider21]

What's your endgame? He supports who he supports. Is there a problem with that?
people can support whoever they want. he gargles her balls. big difference imo. i also favor shillary over trump

the debate was like 5 seconds in and this dude was posting about "hillary going IN :lmao"... fuckin clown

[FkLA]

:lol These CNN panelists are such shills.

:cry she stood up for someone else not herself :cry
:cry it was a you go girl moment :cry

[vy65]

What else would they be effected by in an election with two candidates this bad?

https://res.cloudinary.com/teepublic/image/private/s--As2rKmGc--/t_Preview/b_rgb:36538b,c_limit,f_jpg,h_630,q_90,w_630/v1464730894/production/designs/529596_1.jpg

[RD2191]

people can support whoever they want. he gargles her balls.

big difference imo. the debate was like 5 seconds in and this dude was posting about "hillary going IN :lmao"... fuckin clown

We'll she was going in, not sure what debate you were watching.

[RD2191]

Hugh Mungus 2016 imo

[dabom]

We'll she was going in, not sure what debate you were watching.

:lol

[rasuo214]

The only reason to watch these debates are for entertainment purposes. Most people aren't changing their minds.

[RD2191]

The only reason to watch these debates are for entertainment purposes. Most people aren't changing their minds.

True. Tbh. Trump supporters don't give a shit about trump being a loudmouth idiot.

[Mamuza94]

If the world had right to vote, it would be approximately 85:15 for Trump. And that's not because we love Donald. That's because we already know Clintons very well.

[dabom]

If the world had right to vote, it would be approximately 85:15 for Trump. And that's not because we love Donald. That's because we already know Clintons very well.


WHAT? :lmao

[Reck]

Trump is blaming his microphone..for what..maybe for working? :lol

[Fabbs]

"Go talk to Sean Hannity, go talk to Sean Hannity"

Ya, you're a real non mainstream candidate Trump. :rolleyes

[hitmanyr2k]

These debates would only have entertainment value if they had instant, blunt fact checking Running Man style...

http://67.media.tumblr.com/2b2ae9585f8a8f46bc85c090a6d8456e/tumblr_ncwcvhrPYF1te4hiqo1_400.gif

[Mamuza94]

WHAT? :lmao

He bombed my country and city and he didn't get permission of UN for that. Totally illegal.

BTW. About that 85:15 prediction. That's some resarch that i saw today, it's not my prediction.

[chunticakes]

:lmao

Answer the question. What do her balls taste like? Stop dancing around the question like Trump, you douche.

[dabom]

He bombed my country and city and he didn't get permission of UN for that. Totally illegal.

BTW. About that 85:15 prediction. That's some resarch that i saw today, it's not my prediction.

You're a fucking dumbass. :lmao

[dabom]

Answer the question. What do her balls taste like? Stop dancing around the question like Trump, you douche.

Shut up faggot. :lmao

[FuzzyLumpkins]

What was so meaningful about either of those points you mentioned? Saying trickle down doesn't work or "hey allies, don't be scared" doesn't mean anything.

I hate both candidates equally but for different reasons, so I don't know where you're getting this bit about a preference. And if you're insinuating I'm a boomer than crofl

As HRC pointed out word's matter. Rhetoric is important in relations. Considering the audience pointing out that Trump's tax policies are the same old trickle down we've seen before is meaningful.

You can give whatever platitudes you like but you are conservative through and through. I never stated you were a boomer; typical critical thinking from Counselor Crayola though.

[Mamuza94]

You're a fucking dumbass. :lmao

If u say it.

[Axl Rose]

You're a fucking dumbass. :lmao
Go fuck your self you coddled little shit, you've never had a bomb dropped on you or even missed a meal in your life. Bill Clinton is a war mongering murderer and Islam sympathizer.

[DPG21920]

I honestly feel like I would destroy them in debates - most intelligent people seemingly could. They just lie and make stuff up and back track.

If I was trump and they asked me if I backed the war, I would have said: "Yes, I did. I put my faith in you and what you said was best for our country and I now know I was wrong to do that. I bought into what you sold and it turned out to be one of the biggest mistakes our country has ever made and I regret my decision to follow your lead and that is why I am running now; to prevent further damage to this great country".

She was trying to mock him (and actually did it) for a decision she supported :lol What kind of logic is that?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

If the world had right to vote, it would be approximately 85:15 for Trump. And that's not because we love Donald. That's because we already know Clintons very well.


:lol Serbs being representative of world opinion.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Go fuck your self you coddled little shit, you've never had a bomb dropped on you or even missed a meal in your life. Bill Clinton is a war mongering murderer and Islam sympathizer.

Trump is calling for more bombing, dimwit.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I honestly feel like I would destroy them in debates - most intelligent people seemingly could. They just lie and make stuff up and back track.

If I was trump and they asked me if I backed the war, I would have said: "Yes, I did. I put my faith in you and what you said was best for our country and I now know I was wrong to do that. I bought into what you sold and it turned out to be one of the biggest mistakes our country has ever made and I regret my decision to follow your lead and that is why I am running now; to prevent further damage to this great country".

She was trying to mock him (and actually did it) for a decision she supported :lol What kind of logic is that?

You sound like sports fans who like to pretend they can do better than the coach after a loss.

[DPG21920]

You sound like sports fans who like to pretend they can do better than the coach after a loss.

Ok. But random throw away lines aside, how do you feel about that question, how Trump answered it and the logic of Hilary trying to make Trump look bad for a war she supported as well?

[Reck]

Go fuck your self you coddled little shit, you've never had a bomb dropped on you or even missed a meal in your life. Bill Clinton is a war mongering murderer and Islam sympathizer.

You mad?

But Minnesota is up for grabs. :lmao

[vy65]

As HRC pointed out word's matter. Rhetoric is important in relations. Considering the audience pointing out that Trump's tax policies are the same old trickle down we've seen before is meaningful.

You can give whatever platitudes you like but you are conservative through and through. I never stated you were a boomer; typical critical thinking from Counselor Crayola though.

You're just repeating a really shitty talking point. Which allies was she talking to? What do you think they took from her saying "don't be scared?" Do you think other states heard that and said "whew, guess we're in the clear?" And saying trickle down doesn't work without an explanation of why it doesn't work is the definition of meaningless. She's repeating talking points with 0 substance.

You really need to learn what the word "if" means.

[DPG21920]

Trump is calling for more bombing, dimwit.

This logic again, is just like what I was saying about Hilary mocking Trump for supporting the war. She did too. How is that a talking point?

Even if Trump is calling for more war, how does that change the point of Clinton supporting her husband doing something similar?

It's like all the videos of Hilary saying she does not support gay marriage - there are countless interviews showing this. Now she's all about equality :lol

[dabom]

You sound like sports fans who like to pretend they can do better than the coach after a loss.

This nigga thing he can beat Hillary in a debate. :lol

[ducks]

http://www.cnbc.com/2016/09/26/vote-who-won-the-first-presidential-debate.html
http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2016/09/26/cbsnewyork-poll-who-won-the-first-presidential-debate/
http://drudgereport.com/flashnyd.htm
http://time.com/4506217/presidential-debate-clinton-trump-survey/


cbs
hill also

trump winning debate
only cnn is saying he lost

[DPG21920]

This nigga thing he can beat Hillary in a debate. :lol

You were impressed with her? This debate was a joke. It was not a real debate. I"m not saying I'm smart; I think even you could beat her in a debate like this just with not being an idiot.

There were no impressive answers. It was entertainment, not an actual intellectual debate.

[dabom]

You were impressed with her? This debate was a joke. It was not a real debate. I"m not saying I'm smart; I think even you could beat her in a debate like this just with not being an idiot.

There were no impressive answers. It was entertainment, not an actual intellectual debate.

All repugs downplaying the total onslaught that happened. And no, I'm intelligent enough to know my strengths and weaknesses. She is built for this. I wouldn't win.

[DPG21920]

All repugs downplaying the total onslaught that happened. And no, I'm intelligent enough to know my strengths and weaknesses. She is built for this. I wouldn't win.

:lmao built for pretty generic answers? It was not a real debate - how do you not see this? Repug? I absolutely hate Donald Trump and would vote Hilary. I just hate Hilary less than Trump.

[dabom]

:lmao built for pretty generic answers? It was not a real debate - how do you not see this? Repug? I absolutely hate Donald Trump and would vote Hilary. I just hate Hilary less than Trump.

OK dude. If you say so. :lol

[ducks]

https://gop.com/clintons-top-5-lies-of-the-night/
Clinton's Top 5 Lies Of The Night

[RD2191]

http://www.cnbc.com/2016/09/26/vote-who-won-the-first-presidential-debate.html
http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2016/09/26/cbsnewyork-poll-who-won-the-first-presidential-debate/
http://drudgereport.com/flashnyd.htm
http://time.com/4506217/presidential-debate-clinton-trump-survey/


cos
hill also

trump winning debate
only cnn is saying he lost

He lost. Only delusional trump supporters believe he won. You must've had an aneurysm if you actually believe trump won the debate tonight.

[spurraider21]

the moderator pressed trump a few times... about the birther issue, about his iraq stance, and about the stop and frisk issue, and trump came away looking bad after all those. he was completely evasive and was straight up having a panic attack with the "ask hannity!" stuff.

but in fairness, i didnt really see the moderator grilling hillary at all on anything... all the talk about cyber security and they didnt grill her on her email issue.

it's not a matter of how important it is or isn't, but a matter of being fair to both candidates. if they were going to lock in and grill trump on a few things, they should have put shillary in a similarly tough spot at least once. i'm also pretty surprised trump didnt attack her harder on the cyber stuff

[DPG21920]

OK dude. If you say so. :lol

So your official stance is this was an intelligent debate, with intelligent issues discussed and truly insightful explanations on their plans?

Ok dude. And I'm glad Hilary "beat" Trump. Hilary disgusts me, but Trump can't win. But it was WWE, not genuine debate.

[DPG21920]

the moderator pressed trump a few times... about the birther issue, about his iraq stance, and about the stop and frisk issue, and trump came away looking bad after all those. he was completely evasive and was straight up having a panic attack with the "ask hannity!" stuff.

but in fairness, i didnt really see the moderator grilling hillary at all on anything... all the talk about cyber security and they didnt grill her on her email issue.

it's not a matter of how important it is or isn't, but a matter of being fair to both candidates. if they were going to lock in and grill trump on a few things, they should have put shillary in a similarly tough spot at least once. i'm also pretty surprised trump didnt attack her harder on the cyber stuff

Agreed. It was clearly slanted and you could tell. Hilary didn't need the help with how terrible Trump was overall, but it was obvious as you stated.

[dabom]

Well trump lying was the reason the moderator got after him. Hillary apologized and all was well. Faggot. :lmao

[ducks]

http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2016/09/26/schieffer-presidential-debate/

Clinton did not gain any voters

[DPG21920]

Hilary lied many times. He really got her on the trade agreements. She said she never supported them basically but when it was going on, she's on record saying "they were the Gold Standard" of agreements.

[dabom]

Hilary lied many times. He really got her on the trade agreements. She said she never supported them basically but when it was going on, she's on record saying "they were the Gold Standard" of agreements.

I can't remember what she said to that. Trump didn't let her speak on that occasion. Huffington Post says she didn't lie at all. I'd take their word over yours.

[ducks]

Huff lol

[DPG21920]

I can't remember what she said to that. Trump didn't let her speak on that occasion. Huffington Post says she didn't lie at all. I'd take their word over yours.

:lmao

[dabom]

Trump supporters. :lmao

[dabom]

Small hands. :lmao

Funny cause you and ducks about 4 foot 11. :lmao

[DPG21920]

Trump supporters. :lmao

Well you say HRC doesn't lie, but you obviously do. I just said I hate Trump and would vote HRC :lol but then call me a Trump supporter

[DPG21920]

Maybe I was wrong; Daboom could not beat anyone in a debate - even a fake one where the only thing that matters is speaking clearly and zippy one-liners with very little facts or actual explanation.

[spurraider21]

dabom = boutons - cosmored

[dabom]

Thinking you gonna beat a Yale law school graduate who has extensive experience in debates because you say so. :lmao

[Nbadan]

Not saying Hillary won tonight but...

http://i.imgur.com/N7X9wkF.jpg

...some one picked a bad week to quit sniffing glue....

[Reck]

http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2016/09/26/schieffer-presidential-debate/

Clinton did not gain any voters

Poor ducks on suicide watch.

I'll be a good man and make sure to bump this in a week.

[DPG21920]

You are missing the point of what I said. You are clearly not a Yale Law graduate.

[dabom]

I stay owning ya low IQ chumps everytime. :lol

[dabom]

Thinking you gonna beat a Yale law school graduate who has extensive experience in debates because you say so. :lmao

:lol

[DPG21920]

Maybe you can take advantage of that free college (fact check that) from HRC, Daboom.

[dabom]

I already got an engineering degree. You probably got an arts degree right? :lmao

[DPG21920]

You are lying. You probably support Trump too.

[dabom]

I'm done. Going to sleep. :lol

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Hilary lied many times. He really got her on the trade agreements. She said she never supported them basically but when it was going on, she's on record saying "they were the Gold Standard" of agreements.

What she said after that was she wanted them to be the Gold Standard but as she learned more about it they were not up to her standard and she rejected them. It's a fair position.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Ok. But random throw away lines aside, how do you feel about that question, how Trump answered it and the logic of Hilary trying to make Trump look bad for a war she supported as well?

Colin Powell was actually the one giving briefings and selling it for the Bush administration back then.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

You're just repeating a really shitty talking point. Which allies was she talking to? What do you think they took from her saying "don't be scared?" Do you think other states heard that and said "whew, guess we're in the clear?" And saying trickle down doesn't work without an explanation of why it doesn't work is the definition of meaningless. She's repeating talking points with 0 substance.

You really need to learn what the word "if" means.

You don't get to speak for Japan and the other countries she listed by name. Of course it's rhetoric but as pointed out words are important. The shit Trump has been spewing indeed has world leaders in a tizzy. Foreign ministers and diplomats have been having kittens.

Basically what you are saying is that anything that someone could talk about is meaningless. It's a blanket dismissal. Keep wishcasting.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

This logic again, is just like what I was saying about Hilary mocking Trump for supporting the war. She did too. How is that a talking point?

Even if Trump is calling for more war, how does that change the point of Clinton supporting her husband doing something similar?

It's like all the videos of Hilary saying she does not support gay marriage - there are countless interviews showing this. Now she's all about equality :lol

You mean logic like your moral equivalence? Like Orwell says, "it always boils down to half a loaf equals no loaf."

Clinton just defended the current administration's policy insinuating the status quo would continue. Trump is calling for an escalation and boots on the ground. They are 'similar' but not in the ways that count.

HRC has evolved her position as the country evolved. She would not be the only one particularly when it comes to homosexuality over the past 20 years. I don't see how the two issues are similar in the slightest.

[ElNono]

HRC has evolved her position as the country evolved. She would not be the only one particularly when it comes to homosexuality over the past 20 years. I don't see how the two issues are similar in the slightest.

The problem for her is that she's so untrustworthy, it's extremely difficult to give her the benefit of the doubt that her new positions are an evolution as opposed to mere political expediency.

[ElNono]

I finally watched (most) of the debate, and it was exactly what I would've expected from these two candidates. Crass, both in their echo chambers, spent most of the night talking to their own constituencies.

Rather than quibbling about who "won" the debate, all I know is that we're all losing come November, IMO.

[spurraider21]

I finally watched (most) of the debate, and it was exactly what I would've expected from these two candidates. Crass, both in their echo chambers, spent most of the night talking to their own constituencies.

Rather than quibbling about who "won" the debate, all I know is that we're all losing come November, IMO.
are you sure it wasn't just HILLARY GOING IN RAW :lmao ?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

The problem for her is that she's so untrustworthy, it's extremely difficult to give her the benefit of the doubt that her new positions are an evolution as opposed to mere political expediency.

I don't see the problem with going with her constituents. Of course the concern is her pulling an Obama and going back on her promises like he did on transparency and civil liberties but Trump lies at literally 4 times the rate and his policy positions are both vague and pandering to the ultra rich.

To me its the difference between 4 more years of Obama and 4 years of something worse than Bush the lesser.

[spurraider21]

To me its the difference between 4 more years of Obama and 4 years of something worse than Bush the lesser.
do you even moral equivalence, bro?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

do you even moral equivalence, bro?

was wondering when you would out yourself.

[spurraider21]

was wondering when you would out yourself.
as?

[ElNono]

I don't see the problem with going with her constituents. Of course the concern is her pulling an Obama and going back on her promises like he did on transparency and civil liberties but Trump lies at literally 4 times the rate and his policy positions are both vague and pandering to the ultra rich.

To me its the difference between 4 more years of Obama and 4 years of something worse than Bush the lesser.

I don't disagree with your line of thought. I just get the feeling she's going to be a terrible president, despite Trump potentially being even worse.

There's a lot to criticize Barry for, but I always thought the meme of worst POTUS ever was unwarranted. It wasn't all bad, nor all the bad entirely his fault. I actually think he'll probably be remembered in much better light than his predecessor, and he looks to be walking out of office with about a 50% approval rating, which is pretty impressive considering the current polarization.

I just think either of these two are going to be worse by a long mile. I freely admit it's just a gut feeling, nothing more.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I didn't say that they were just as good or as bad. I was saying that they were similar.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

as?

the people that are desperate to pin moral equivalency on me on a different political forum. Not sure which one you are.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

dp

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I don't disagree with your line of thought. I just get the feeling she's going to be a terrible president, despite Trump potentially being even worse.

There's a lot to criticize Barry for, but I always thought the meme of worst POTUS ever was unwarranted. It wasn't all bad, nor all the bad entirely his fault. I actually think he'll probably be remembered in much better light than his predecessor, and he looks to be walking out of office with about a 50% approval rating, which is pretty impressive considering the current polarization.

I just think either of these two are going to be worse by a long mile. I freely admit it's just a gut feeling, nothing more.

Fair enough. I am ambivalent about HRC. I can see it going well and I can see it going to shit.

I can see her working to fix college tuition, health care, and appoint SCOTUS judges that will reverse CU. I can also see her going trojan horse and having a redux of her husbands presidency where we get another regime of banking deregulation and contract with stupidity part 2.

I have no doubt that Trump would be awful. It would see the deregulation regime and trickle down economics plus horrific SCOTUS nominations while he enriches himself and alienates the world. WW3 is a real risk with him.

[spurraider21]

the people that are desperate to pin moral equivalency on me on a different political forum. Not sure which one you are.
:lmao not even close

[FuzzyLumpkins]

:lmao not even close

Like you would admit it.

[spurraider21]

Like you would admit it.
no matter if I've already "outed myself." you think too highly of yourself to assume people actually follow you across forums. just for the lulz i'd love for you to PM me a link to this other poster

you made a comment about moral equivalence just a handful of posts ago, so i found it ironic that you went onto do the same

seriously though, link me, i'm genuinely interested :lol

[FuzzyLumpkins]

no matter if I've already "outed myself." you think too highly of yourself to assume people actually follow you across forums. just for the lulz i'd love for you to PM me a link to this other poster

you made a comment about moral equivalence just a handful of posts ago, so i found it ironic that you went onto do the same

seriously though, link me, i'm genuinely interested :lol

I don't assume anything. People there have followed me there and have said as much. I know who one of them is because he tells a story about his daughter getting beheaded by a methhead.

I never said they were just as good or bad. That is the basis of moral equivalence. I meant that it would 'be like' not that it 'was' as well.

I say they are similar because HRC defends Obama's policies and was in his administration and like Bush Trump believes in trickle down economics and unilateral military intervention.

And you may very well not be but again why would you admit it?

[spurraider21]

I don't assume anything. People there have followed me there and have said as much. I know who one of them is because he tells a story about his daughter getting beheaded by a methhead.

I never said they were just as good or bad. That is the basis of moral equivalence. I meant that it would 'be like' not that it 'was' as well.

I say they are similar because HRC defends Obama's policies and was in his administration and like Bush Trump believes in trickle down economics and unilateral military intervention.

And you may very well not be but again why would you admit it?
so you won't even link me to this poster? :depressed

can even be a pm

[boutons_deux]

Coal Bear nailing it LIVE from New York!

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

[Reck]

Surprise surprise...already rumblings of Trump pulling out of further debates. :lmao hater

https://www.google.com/amp/www.nbcnews.com/storyline/2016-presidential-debates/amp/trump-adviser-giuliani-i-wouldn-t-participate-another-debate-n655251?client=safari

[johnsmith]

After watching that debate, sleeping on it, I've come to the conclusion that we are so fucked.

[baseline bum]

After watching that debate, sleeping on it, I've come to the conclusion that we are so fucked.

And unfuckable?

[DarrinS]

the moderator pressed trump a few times... about the birther issue, about his iraq stance, and about the stop and frisk issue, and trump came away looking bad after all those. he was completely evasive and was straight up having a panic attack with the "ask hannity!" stuff.

but in fairness, i didnt really see the moderator grilling hillary at all on anything... all the talk about cyber security and they didnt grill her on her email issue.

it's not a matter of how important it is or isn't, but a matter of being fair to both candidates. if they were going to lock in and grill trump on a few things, they should have put shillary in a similarly tough spot at least once. i'm also pretty surprised trump didnt attack her harder on the cyber stuff


He didn't want to get Matt Lauer'ed

[UNT Eagles 2016]

Draw. :lol

Trump is still picking up the pieces.

You can argue that it's a draw if you think Hillary didn't actually win, which is a fair point, because of her mechanical sounding statements that we all know are lip service at this point... no way in hell Trump won, though. He won the very first question... that's it.

[dabom]

Trump getting shit on by everyone. His advisers telling him to not go to another debate. :lmao

[dabom]

Anyone thinking Hillary didn't win this debate by a fucking huge margin. :lmao

[UNT Eagles 2016]

I don't disagree with your line of thought. I just get the feeling she's going to be a terrible president, despite Trump potentially being even worse.

There's a lot to criticize Barry for, but I always thought the meme of worst POTUS ever was unwarranted. It wasn't all bad, nor all the bad entirely his fault. I actually think he'll probably be remembered in much better light than his predecessor, and he looks to be walking out of office with about a 50% approval rating, which is pretty impressive considering the current polarization.

I just think either of these two are going to be worse by a long mile. I freely admit it's just a gut feeling, nothing more.
You have to consider that there's a good chance HRC's health won't hold up too long and she won't run after her first term... hell, she might not be healthy enough to last the whole first term, in which case it's too bad Hillary picked mundane Kaine instead of someone better like Cuomo or Uncle Joe.

[dabom]

Anyone thinking Hillary is going to do a bad job as POTUS. :lmao

Faggots. :lmao

[UNT Eagles 2016]

Trump getting shit on by everyone. His advisers telling him to not go to another debate. :lmao

So the guy who brags about his toughness is just going to quit?

[UNT Eagles 2016]

FkLA who are you voting for? Stein? Johnson?

[dabom]

So the guy who brags about his toughness is just going to quit?

I don't know, but his right hand men, are telling him to quit the debates. Guess he got murdered right? :lmao

[Reck]

You have to consider that there's a good chance HRC's health won't hold up too long and she won't run after her first term... hell, she might not be healthy enough to last the whole first term, in which case it's too bad Hillary picked mundane Kaine instead of someone better like Cuomo or Uncle Joe.

You're still talking about her health? :lol

She was the one who looked solid and Trump the one who looked weak. Guy was sniffling all night and drinking water non-stop.

Hillary never touched hers.

[boutons_deux]

So the guy who brags about his toughness is just going to quit?

"By The Way, That's Smart"

[boutons_deux]

Trump said that he thought his Democratic rival Hillary Clinton struggled during the first part of the debate.

“I thought she was very bad in the first half when they were asking normal questions and when they were asking unfair questions, she got better,” he said.

“And what grade do you give Lester Holt?” asked host Steve Doocy.

“I give him a C, C+,” Trump said.

“I thought he was okay, I thought he was fine. I mean nothing outstanding. He gave me very unfair questions at the end, the last three, four questions, but I’m not complaining about that. I thought he was okay.

http://www.mediaite.com/tv/donald-trump-lester-holt-asked-me-very-unfair-questions-but-im-not-complaining/

Typical establishment Repug or Fox Nooze employee: living in fantasy world.

[DarrinS]

Topics that were announced on Sept. 19

* America's Direction
* Achieving Prosperity
* Securing America


Topics actually talked about

tax returns: check
birtherism: check
stop and frisk: check
TRUMP's support of Iraq war: check
climate change denial: check

emails: meh

[Xevious]

Rather than quibbling about who "won" the debate, all I know is that we're all losing come November, IMO.
Exactly how I feel.

[dabom]

Topics that were announced on Sept. 19

* America's Direction
* Achieving Prosperity
* Securing America


Topics actually talked about

tax returns: check
birtherism: check
stop and frisk: check
TRUMP's support of Iraq war: check
climate change denial: check

emails: meh

:lol

Trump had some openings too. He missed like atleast 3 talking points. Hillary just made her points part of the questions asked. She did a really good job.

[boutons_deux]

we're all losing come November, IMO.

... because the Repugs will continue to control the House, and continue to fuck up govt be defunding it.

The Repug/VRWC strategy at all levels of govt is well known: fuck up govt, piss off citizens, in preparation for privatization (aka looting by corporatocracy/oligarchy)

Trash would, as an establishment Repug, do everything he could to fuck up govt.

Hillary, like Obama, will not be able to stop the Repug House from defunding govt. Hillary will simply preside over the continuing decline of the America of the 90%.

[ducks]

http://nypost.com/2016/09/26/the-best-debate-takes-come-from-inside-the-bar/

[RD2191]

You know you're fighting against delusional idiots when Trump supporters actually believe he won last night. :lmao

[ducks]

Michael Moore Says Trump ‘Won’ The Debate

[RD2191]

Michael Moore Says Trump ‘Won’ The Debate

What does your mom say?

[FromWayDowntown]

Michael Moore Says Trump ‘Won’ The Debate

Things are definitely upside down when Trump supporters are pointing to Michael Moore's opinion as positive proof for their points.

[pgardn]

Donald Trump is the consummate salesman. Rules, tradition, even the truth are only relevant in so much as they help seal the deal. - THE GUARDIAN

This is really true with many politicians as well. The difference here is Donna boy would be dealing with people much smarter and more powerful than himself, not some carpenter he decided to stiff. You don't negotiate with the Chinese political class like you do with some relative who fell into a large amount of cash accidentally and wishes to do business with you. He had the US court system to use in some of his deals trying to take money from foreigners investing here. Donald's followers think because he has made money, and says what they would like to say in their most stupid moments, he can change things. This is so naive. The game is NOT his reality show. It's not a beauty contest.

[Spurminator]

Things are definitely upside down when Trump supporters are pointing to Michael Moore's opinion as positive proof for their points.

:lol

[pgardn]

Michael Moore Says Trump ‘Won’ The Debate

Michael Moore says...

Well there you have it.

[boutons_deux]

Trump Didn’t Even Try, But Chuck Todd Charges That Hillary Clinton Was ‘Over-Prepared’ :lol


http://www.politicususa.com/2016/09/27/trump-chuck-todd-hillary-over-prepared.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+politicususa%2FfJAl+%28Politi cus+USA+%29

wow :lol

[CosmicCowboy]

I don't see how anyone thinks Trump won. He started out strong and then got rattled later. It didn't help that Lester hit Trump a lot harder than he did Clinton. Hillary wasn't particularly good, Trump was just worse. He missed some golden opportunities to hammer her on rebuttal and didn't.

[DPG21920]

No one won the debate. It was not a real debate. But Trump was awful at whatever that was. He had one great moment and that was talking about the trade agreements and he caught HRC at best bending her truth and coat-tailing him and at worst lying and just hoping she wouldn't be fact checked on that one.

Other than that, he was horrific, did not outline any specific policy (or at least not intelligently) and stammered all over the place.

HRC was not great, but she is much more well spoken and has a way better and less invasive demeanor but she is a career politician and that is what she does.

[Spurminator]

The whole thing was a gossip TV shit show. 10% real policy discussion, 90% inconsequential bickering, but that's what America wants.

[FromWayDowntown]

I just think either of these two are going to be worse by a long mile. I freely admit it's just a gut feeling, nothing more.

Compared to Obama? Absolutely.

I'm in this election on one issue and one alone, and that's the federal courts (not just the Supreme Court, which, while important, is hardly the only judicial check on our pure politics that is in play at this point). Period.

The rest of it, with these two, is just noise to me. Each of these two would be absolutely buried if either of them were running against someone who was even slightly less unlikeable.

Once the GOP picked Trump, this election stopped being about policy; if Republicans really wanted this election to be about policy, they would have nominated someone who was serious about policy. Dispute that if you wish, but in some circles this morning, we're actually assessing the outcome of a debate by assessing whether or not the candidates were or were not boring.

So, we've got a cult of personality (untethered to any real policy principles or knowledge) competing with a woman who's been demonized for the last quarter century and apparently decided to participate in her own demonization, perhaps because her opponents weren't doing a good enough job at making her seem untrustworthy and unlikeable.

I feel like this is all prelude to the 2040 Debates between "The Situation" and Peyton Manning.

[dabom]

:lol

[pgardn]

The whole thing was a gossip TV shit show. 10% real policy discussion, 90% inconsequential bickering, but that's what America wants.

Real policy is something both might want to stay away from. Trump, because he has no policy that can be backed by any plan (he has stayed away from actual plans), and Hillary, because she can actually lend herself to attack on bad policy.

[FromWayDowntown]

I don't see how anyone thinks Trump won. He started out strong and then got rattled later. It didn't help that Lester hit Trump a lot harder than he did Clinton. Hillary wasn't particularly good, Trump was just worse. He missed some golden opportunities to hammer her on rebuttal and didn't.

I think the thing we saw is just how easily he can be distracted and lose focus on the point of an activity. He managed to hold it together for 15 minutes, but once she stopped kissing the ring (by calling him "Donald" and not "Mr. Trump," as every sycophant around him does) and once she began suggesting that the "Trump" concept might be just a house of cards, he couldn't hold back.

There is something to the idea of being presidential and understanding the requirements of diplomacy, which certainly means that you have to endure your share of criticism without overreacting.

[vy65]

Compared to Obama? Absolutely.

I'm in this election on one issue and one alone, and that's the federal courts (not just the Supreme Court, which, while important, is hardly the only judicial check on our pure politics that is in play at this point). Period.

The rest of it, with these two, is just noise to me. Each of these two would be absolutely buried if either of them were running against someone who was even slightly less unlikeable.

Once the GOP picked Trump, this election stopped being about policy; if Republicans really wanted this election to be about policy, they would have nominated someone who was serious about policy. Dispute that if you wish, but in some circles this morning, we're actually assessing the outcome of a debate by assessing whether or not the candidates were or were not boring.

So, we've got a cult of personality (untethered to any real policy principles or knowledge) competing with a woman who's been demonized for the last quarter century and apparently decided to participate in her own demonization, perhaps because her opponents weren't doing a good enough job at making her seem untrustworthy and unlikeable.

I feel like this is all prelude to the 2040 Debates between "The Situation" and Peyton Manning.

Just out of curiosity, what sort of judges do you envision President Trump appointing?

[101A]

Compared to Obama? Absolutely.

I'm in this election on one issue and one alone, and that's the federal courts (not just the Supreme Court, which, while important, is hardly the only judicial check on our pure politics that is in play at this point). Period.

The rest of it, with these two, is just noise to me. Each of these two would be absolutely buried if either of them were running against someone who was even slightly less unlikeable.

Once the GOP picked Trump, this election stopped being about policy; if Republicans really wanted this election to be about policy, they would have nominated someone who was serious about policy. Dispute that if you wish, but in some circles this morning, we're actually assessing the outcome of a debate by assessing whether or not the candidates were or were not boring.

So, we've got a cult of personality (untethered to any real policy principles or knowledge) competing with a woman who's been demonized for the last quarter century and apparently decided to participate in her own demonization, perhaps because her opponents weren't doing a good enough job at making her seem untrustworthy and unlikeable.

I feel like this is all prelude to the 2040 Debates between "The Situation" and Peyton Manning.

This.

Also, anyone attempting to judge this "debate" on any type of conventional metric has missed the point. The only people that matter are the undecideds in specific states. I live in Western Pennsylvania. I know who these people are. They are, to a large part, my neighbors. This election, literally, is going to be decided within 150 miles of my house. If Trump can carry this part of the country by enough votes to counter what happens in the Eastern part of the state (Philadelphia for those of you geographically challenged), he will win the state, and the presidency. His seventh grade vocabulary, and simplistic logic and reasoning WORK here. I haven't talked to them, but him hammering NAFTA, and pointing out Hillary's flip flop on TPP might be the only parts of the debate they even heard.

Trump signs, btw, are about 5 times more prevalent than Romney's were, and there are practically no Hillary signs, whereas Obama's were evident 4 years ago.

[boutons_deux]

"demonized for the last quarter century"

she's been WITCH HUNTED, HARASSED, by VRWC/Repugs for purely political objectives, which is very different from being JUSTIFIABLY demonized.

Benghazi and her email are typifiy the totally fabricated "scandals", just like whitewater, her murdering Vince Foster, WH christmas card list. etc, etc.

[101A]

Just out of curiosity, what sort of judges do you envision President Trump appointing?

http://www.latimes.com/nation/politics/trailguide/la-na-republican-convention-2016-live-here-s-the-shortlist-of-11-conservative-1468975724-htmlstory.html

[101A]

"demonized for the last quarter century"

she's been WITCH HUNTED, HARASSED, by VRWC/Repugs for purely political objectives, which is very different from being JUSTIFIABLY demonized.

Benghazi and her email are typifiy the totally fabricated "scandals", just like whitewater, her murdering Vince Foster, WH christmas card list. etc, etc.




I don't see Benghazi (a terrorist attack, with a sloppy White House response) and the emails (a blatant scheme to shield communication, both official and otherwise, from ever seeing the light of day) as similar.

[Reck]

A lot of denial this morning.

[FromWayDowntown]

Just out of curiosity, what sort of judges do you envision President Trump appointing?

Given the lists that he's circulated to this point, Judges who are rabidly conservative and perfectly willing to engage in their own "judicial activism" to achieve particular political ends.

I'll admit that my quarrel with them lies largely in fundamental disagreements about the virtues of protecting the individual against the State through the 4th and 5th Amendments, protection of political and other minorities through (particularly) the 5th and 14th Amendments, the limits on the government recognized to date through the Establishment Clause, the value of a robust tort litigation environment in our courts to protect the safety of citizens against the purely economic concerns of business, and (mostly) about what I think is the intentionally expansive nature of Constitutional language to deal with issues that haven't even yet arisen.

I'd much prefer to see the next President appoint judges and justices in the mold of Steven Breyer or Anthony Kennedy (or, perhaps better yet, David Souter) than in the mold of Antonin Scalia or Clarence Thomas.

[MultiTroll]

I feel like this is all prelude to the 2040 Debates between "The Situation" and Peyton Manning.
:lmao Maybe we should start a thread on this.

Secretary of Bloviating and Fashun. Kanye Kardashian
Diplomacy and non gender Sensitivity Caitlyn Jender
Finance Secretary. Some NBA or NFL scrub that is making 2 billion per year.

[Pelicans78]

I don't support neither, but I think this debate went how Hillary wanted it to go. Trump looked silly at times and couldn't help himself. Poor effort by his part.

[boutons_deux]

I don't see Benghazi (a terrorist attack, with a sloppy White House response) and the emails (a blatant scheme to shield communication, both official and otherwise, from ever seeing the light of day) as similar.

John Oliver will set you straight about "scandals" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h1Lfd1aB9YI

If you want to go after Hillary as neocon-ly loving every "regime change" that came along, including Libya, fine. Her neocon-itude is primarily why I don't support beyond being #NeverTrash.

But Repugs setting up 8 "Benghazi" committees and wasting $Ms to bring down Hillary is bullshit harassment for purely political reasons.

John Oliver points out 10+ other top govt officials who use private communications for govt business,including Karl Rove deleting 20M+ to hide the US Atty crisis. Why aren't the Repugs investigating them? no, they harass ONLY Hillary, and it's PURE BULLSHIT.

[dbestpro]

One of the interesting conclusions as to why Trump is doing so well on the fringe left, website online polls, is that the Sanders supporters are starting to distance themselves from Hillary.

[Reck]

Trump stepped it in again. He's doubling down on calling that chick miss piggy. :lol

[Spurminator]

https://media.giphy.com/media/3o7TKnxwpUqCkdb5Li/giphy.gif

[oh crap]

she's taking this shit all the way to election day

[DPG21920]

I am so legitimately nervous about the next 4 years. I have never been one to really think our country could become terrible, but I do think the downside of Trump or HRC is catastrophic.

It's depressing and I have never been so uninspired.

[baseline bum]

I am so legitimately nervous about the next 4 years. I have never been one to really think our country could become terrible, but I do think the downside of Trump or HRC is catastrophic.

It's depressing and I have never been so uninspired.

I'd be much less nervous about a Clinton presidency since a Republican house and possibly senate will act as a check and balance against her. If Trump wins it means the senate probably stays red and you have Republican control of the house, senate, presidency, supreme court (Scalia's replacement and Ginsburg's soon to be replacement), as well as most states. A Trump win would be handing complete control of the nation to a single party. A Clinton presidency and a Republican senate ensure a couple of centrist Supreme Court appointments, a Clinton presidency and a Democratic senate will likely result in a couple of centrist or center-left appointments, while a Trump presidency and a Republican senate ensure two far right appointments.

[DPG21920]

I'd be much less nervous about a Clinton presidency since a Republican house and possibly senate will act as a check and balance against her. If Trump wins it means the senate probably stays red and you have Republican control of the house, senate, presidency, supreme court (Scalia's replacement and Ginsburg's soon to be replacement), as well as most states. A Trump win would be handing complete control of the nation to a single party. A Clinton presidency and a Republican senate ensure a couple of centrist Supreme Court appointments, a Clinton presidency and a Democratic senate will likely result in a couple of centrist or center-left appointments, while a Trump presidency and a Republican senate ensure two far right appointments.

Largely I would agree with this. My issue is knowing that while Trump must not be allowed to win, HRC appears to be an awful person.

At a minimum, policies aside, I think it's mandatory to have someone trustworthy with good morals leading our country. I don't believe either of them are good people with high moral standards.

[florige]

I don't support neither, but I think this debate went how Hillary wanted it to go. Trump looked silly at times and couldn't help himself. Poor effort by his part.


Her camp just pretty much probably drilled in her head composure. You get in the gutter with him and that where he excel's at. He pretty much interrupted her all night where as she didn't much at all.

[Reck]

I am so legitimately nervous about the next 4 years. I have never been one to really think our country could become terrible, but I do think the downside of Trump or HRC is catastrophic.

It's depressing and I have never been so uninspired.

You nerds need to calm down.

Where do you get the feeling Clinton would nuke this country? If anything, she's promising more Obama like policies. Trump is going out there saying shit like we'll hand out nukes to other countries, go into bed with Putin etc etc etc.

[RandomGuy]

Largely I would agree with this. My issue is knowing that while Trump must not be allowed to win, HRC appears to be an awful person.

At a minimum, policies aside, I think it's mandatory to have someone trustworthy with good morals leading our country. I don't believe either of them are good people with high moral standards.

(shrugs)

One has actively worked for children's charities, and done pro bono work for same. One used his charity foundation to pay for card-board cutouts of himself, and to pay his own personal legal obligations.

One was stupid and careless with email. One has a record of stiffing vendors, has been sued thousands of times, and is being sued for outright fraud by people who trusted him with large parts of their personal savings.

You can't argue the two are somehow equally bad.

Ask yourself what specifically makes you think Hillary is "awful". Tick down whatever mental list you have. I will be willing to bet that you can't name anything specific. Hillary Clinton has been the running victim of a political propaganda machine for decades. That machine has forced investigation after investigation after investigation attempting to show something that just isn't there. Individually one should be mindful of the charges, and consider them carefully, but after three plus decades, a pattern of the right throwing things at the wall to see if they stick becomes painfully obvious.

This is what makes me fairly skeptical of "crooked" Hillary tropes.

[RandomGuy]

Her camp just pretty much probably drilled in her head composure. You get in the gutter with him and that where he excel's at. He pretty much interrupted her all night where as she didn't much at all.


My take:


My policy proposals are outlined in great detail on my website, and here are my positions...

Me talk good. Dog ate my strategy.

[RandomGuy]

Trump stepped it in again. He's doubling down on calling that chick miss piggy. :lol

For me, his intellectual vacuousness was highlighted by this bit:


Stop and frisk is [unconstitutional and ineffective as a policy]...


“It went before a judge who was a very against police judge.”

[RandomGuy]

I'd be much less nervous about a Clinton presidency since a Republican house and possibly senate will act as a check and balance against her. If Trump wins it means the senate probably stays red and you have Republican control of the house, senate, presidency, supreme court (Scalia's replacement and Ginsburg's soon to be replacement), as well as most states. A Trump win would be handing complete control of the nation to a single party. A Clinton presidency and a Republican senate ensure a couple of centrist Supreme Court appointments, a Clinton presidency and a Democratic senate will likely result in a couple of centrist or center-left appointments, while a Trump presidency and a Republican senate ensure two far right appointments.

That will, for me, be some delicious irony.
The fuckwits in the Republican party who have put their party over the good of the country and their constitutional duty, have decided not to approve a fairly conservative, respected judge, will be faced with accepting nominees that will be decidedly less conservative.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

so you won't even link me to this poster? :depressed

can even be a pm

Ohh if you want to see the site I am talking about it's punndits.com. And its not just one poster although Nelson is the one who talks about his daughter getting her head chopped off.

[baseline bum]

Ask yourself what specifically makes you think Hillary is "awful". Tick down whatever mental list you have. I will be willing to bet that you can't name anything specific. Hillary Clinton has been the running victim of a political propaganda machine for decades. That machine has forced investigation after investigation after investigation attempting to show something that just isn't there. Individually one should be mindful of the charges, and consider them carefully, but after three plus decades, a pattern of the right throwing things at the wall to see if they stick becomes painfully obvious.


What makes me think Hillary is awful is I think she'd govern much as her husband did: from the center right, and very lassiez-faire economically to the benefit of their criminal friends on Wall Street. She is also a war hawk. She talks from the left in her speeches and in the debate last night but I'm not buying it, as she has always been pretty center-right before then. Don't get me wrong, she is unquestionably the better candidate in my mind and I'll be voting for her, but I really don't like her.

[baseline bum]

That will, for me, be some delicious irony.
The fuckwits in the Republican party who have put their party over the good of the country and their constitutional duty, have decided not to approve a fairly conservative, respected judge, will be faced with accepting nominees that will be decidedly less conservative.

If the Republicans hold the senate with Clinton taking the presidency I imagine Garland will be confirmed. You'll only get a more liberal appointment with a Clinton + Dem senate sweep.

[oh crap]

Don't get me wrong, she is unquestionably the better candidate in my mind and I'll be voting for her, but I really don't like her.

sums up my position as well

[spurraider21]

Ohh if you want to see the site I am talking about it's punndits.com. And its not just one poster although Nelson is the one who talks about his daughter getting her head chopped off.
which one am i? i'm curious

[RandomGuy]

What makes me think Hillary is awful is I think she'd govern much as her husband did: from the center right, and very lassiez-faire economically to the benefit of their criminal friends on Wall Street. She is also a war hawk. She talks from the left in her speeches and in the debate last night but I'm not buying it, as she has always been pretty center-right before then. Don't get me wrong, she is unquestionably the better candidate in my mind and I'll be voting for her, but I really don't like her.

Fair comment all. But note that you can name general policy instances, and generally where she stands on things that you don't agree with, but can you name something specific that could be called "awful"?

Chumpdumper made a career here pointing out intellectually vacuous positions by asking very simple, pointed questions like that. I learned that if you can't flesh out an idea with something specific, one should rachet up one's skepticism.

[spurraider21]

i was saying during primary season that it was only a matter of time until the same people throwing hillary under the bus will be shilling for her come the generals...

[baseline bum]

Fair comment all. But note that you can name general policy instances, and generally where she stands on things that you don't agree with, but can you name something specific that could be called "awful"?

Chumpdumper made a career here pointing out intellectually vacuous positions by asking very simple, pointed questions like that. I learned that if you can't flesh out an idea with something specific, one should rachet up one's skepticism.

We don't know her policy right now and won't until she would actually be governing. Her husband blindly following Greenspan in not regulating cds as insurance was pretty awful, and directly caused the great recession that we still haven't really bounced back from 8 years later.

[DPG21920]

HRC a victim? If you think HRC is an honest, good person I have a problem with you. Not as much as I have a problem with Trump supporters, but damn.

You are straight up lying to yourself if you are pretending like HRC is trustworthy. She lies, shifts her opinions to help in the moment for gain and has a history of supporting things that have proven to be harmful.

Sure, compared to trump she's an angel. But that is not the question. HRC standing on her own, not compared to Trump, I feel is a pretty deplorable person too with plenty of skeletons in her closet.

What she has going for her is table etiquette. She at least knows how to lie through her teeth to keep tensions down and that is important as a President I guess.

[boutons_deux]

"she would actually be governing"

The kind of stuff she has said she wants to do mostly cannot be done by a President by Executive order, and mostly has to be passed by Congress (Repugs will continue to be "strict obstructionists" for anything that helps the 99%).

As was asked, was specifically horrible stuff CAN she can do ALONE as Pres that you don't like?

Even stuff that can be done by Executive order Constitutionally, will be sued by the Repugs to block it or tie it up in the courts for years.

[vy65]

Given the lists that he's circulated to this point, Judges who are rabidly conservative and perfectly willing to engage in their own "judicial activism" to achieve particular political ends.

I'll admit that my quarrel with them lies largely in fundamental disagreements about the virtues of protecting the individual against the State through the 4th and 5th Amendments, protection of political and other minorities through (particularly) the 5th and 14th Amendments, the limits on the government recognized to date through the Establishment Clause, the value of a robust tort litigation environment in our courts to protect the safety of citizens against the purely economic concerns of business, and (mostly) about what I think is the intentionally expansive nature of Constitutional language to deal with issues that haven't even yet arisen.

I'd much prefer to see the next President appoint judges and justices in the mold of Steven Breyer or Anthony Kennedy (or, perhaps better yet, David Souter) than in the mold of Antonin Scalia or Clarence Thomas.

Thanks. I'll defer to you on the constitutional aspects since that's your bailiwick, I think, but man you are fooling yourself if you think robust tort litigation has anything to do with combating a "profits over people" mentality.

I do agree that it would be best to appoint conservatives, since politics through judicial activism seems inevitable regardless of you bleeding red or blue.

[Reck]

I think Trump's in trouble. Hillary is giving a speech at a North Carolina rally and the people there actually sound like they want to be there. Enthusiastic for once.

Big crowd, too.

Hillary also seems like she's not a fucking corpse.

[boutons_deux]

TRUMP THREATENS TO SKIP REMAINING DEBATES IF HILLARY IS THERE

HEMPSTEAD, N.Y. — Plunging the future of the 2016 Presidential debates into doubt, Donald J. Trump said on Tuesday morning that he would not participate in the remaining two debates if Hillary Clinton is there.

Trump blasted the format of Monday night’s debate by claiming that the presence of Clinton was “specifically designed” to distract him from delivering his message to the American people.

“Every time I said something, she would say something back,” he said. “It was rigged.”

He also lambasted the “underhanded tactics” his opponent used during the debate.

“She kept on bringing up things I said or did,” he added. “She is a very nasty person.”

Turning to CNN, Trump criticized the network’s use of a split screen showing both him and Clinton throughout the telecast.

“It should have been just me,” he said. “That way people could have seen how really good my temperament is.”

The billionaire said that debate organizers had not yet responded to his ultimatum, but he warned that

if he does not get assurances in writing that future debates will be “un-rigged, Hillary-wise,” he will not participate.

“I have said time and time again that I would only do these debates if I am treated fairly,” he added.

“The only way I can be guaranteed of being treated fairly is if Hillary Clinton is not there.”

http://www.newyorker.com/humor/borowitz-report/trump-threatens-to-skip-remaining-debates-if-hillary-is-there (http://www.newyorker.com/humor/borowitz-report/trump-threatens-to-skip-remaining-debates-if-hillary-is-there)

[dabom]

:lmao

[boutons_deux]

Trash, as his habit of fuzzy thinking, misstating, and outright lying, endorsed by the Federal govt's ICE?

Fuck no

and the UNIONS (that Repugs hate totally) lied about Hillary, following Trash's example

""Her plan is total amnesty plus open borders," Mr. Crane said, without disclosing the percentage of union members who voted for the Trump endorsement.

"Let us be clear: the non-enforcement agenda (https://www.donaldjtrump.com/press-releases/immigration-and-customs-enforcement-officers-endorse-donald-j.-trump-for-pr) of this administration, favored by Secretary Clinton, results in the daily loss of life and victimization of many, to include not only American citizens but also those attempting to immigrate to our country," Crane added."

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/2016/0927/Did-ICE-endorse-Trump-No-but-a-union-of-5-000-immigration-agents-did

[FromWayDowntown]

you are fooling yourself if you think robust tort litigation has anything to do with combating a "profits over people" mentality.

If you say so. My experience is that tort reform is generally not good for average citizens.


I do agree that it would be best to appoint conservatives, since politics through judicial activism seems inevitable regardless of you bleeding red or blue.

I don't think I said that I was hoping for conservatives, so if you're agreeing with me about the idea that conservative judges and justices would be good, we don't actually have an agreement.

[101A]

(shrugs)

One has actively worked for children's charities, and done pro bono work for same. One used his charity foundation to pay for card-board cutouts of himself, and to pay his own personal legal obligations.

One was stupid and careless with email. One has a record of stiffing vendors, has been sued thousands of times, and is being sued for outright fraud by people who trusted him with large parts of their personal savings.

You can't argue the two are somehow equally bad.

Ask yourself what specifically makes you think Hillary is "awful". Tick down whatever mental list you have. I will be willing to bet that you can't name anything specific. Hillary Clinton has been the running victim of a political propaganda machine for decades. That machine has forced investigation after investigation after investigation attempting to show something that just isn't there. Individually one should be mindful of the charges, and consider them carefully, but after three plus decades, a pattern of the right throwing things at the wall to see if they stick becomes painfully obvious.

This is what makes me fairly skeptical of "crooked" Hillary tropes.

She forgets everything. I don't know how many times I've heard her answer questions with "I don't recall", or "I can't remember". This dates back decades. She's either suffering from mad cow disease, or is some form of autistic. I was, frankly, amazed at how much she could remember during the debate. I thought it would be boring with her blank staring at the camera and shrugging her shoulders the whole time.

[101A]

That will, for me, be some delicious irony.
The fuckwits in the Republican party who have put their party over the good of the country and their constitutional duty, have decided not to approve a fairly conservative, respected judge, will be faced with accepting nominees that will be decidedly less conservative.

The Fuckwits will approve him a couple days after Hillary wins, IMO.

[101A]

HRC a victim? If you think HRC is an honest, good person I have a problem with you. Not as much as I have a problem with Trump supporters, but damn.

You are straight up lying to yourself if you are pretending like HRC is trustworthy. She lies, shifts her opinions to help in the moment for gain and has a history of supporting things that have proven to be harmful.

Sure, compared to trump she's an angel. But that is not the question. HRC standing on her own, not compared to Trump, I feel is a pretty deplorable person too with plenty of skeletons in her closet.

What she has going for her is table etiquette. She at least knows how to lie through her teeth to keep tensions down and that is important as a President I guess.

I agree with this.

[ducks]

Of the 21 polls (including CNN's) mentioned in the Daily Mail story, Trump won 17 of them, including:
Time: Trump 58 percent, Clinton 42 percent
CBS New York: Trump 24K votes, 17,600 votes
San Diego Tribune: Trump 66 percent, Clinton 34 percent
Slate: Trump 54 percent, Clinton 46 percent
Variety: Trump 51 percent, Clinton 48 percent
Fortune: Trump 51 percent, Clinton 49 percent
CNBC: Trump 51 percent, Clinton 49 percent

The CNN poll found that 62 percent of those surveyed by the left-leaning network thought Clinton won. Trump garnered 27 percent.

[clambake]

come on ducks! bring it!

[ducks]

In another survey conducted by Public Policy Polling, viewers gave Clinton the nod by double digits — 51 percent to 40 percent. Those 1,002 viewers were pre-screened before the debate began.

[vy65]

If you say so. My experience is that tort reform is generally not good for average citizens.

That's a little bit different a question than what I think you had initially said -- which was robust tort law allows people to combat corporate practices that place profits over people, etc... To that point, I'd say that the heavy influence of insurance companies in tort litigation (which buffers true corporate exposure) with just how evil plaintiffs attorneys tend to be (look up what Thomas J. Henry has done, for example), and you'll get a glimpse why tort law isn't a good way to reform corporate mentalities.


I don't think I said that I was hoping for conservatives, so if you're agreeing with me about the idea that conservative judges and justices would be good, we don't actually have an agreement.

Meant moderates, my b.

[boutons_deux]

Smile, constituents: this man may become president (http://www.vox.com/2016/9/26/13065174/first-presidential-debate-live-transcript-clinton-trump).


Look at the mess that we're in. Look at the mess that we're in. As far as the cyber, I agree to parts of what secretary Clinton said, we should be better than anybody else, and perhaps we're not. I don't know if we know it was Russia who broke into the DNC.

She's saying Russia, Russia, Russia. Maybe it was. It could also be China, it could be someone sitting on their bed that weighs 400 pounds...


Look, anyone who refers to cybersecurity or cyberwarfare as "the cyber" is probably better off not discussing this.

But Donald Trump, in last night's debate, felt compelled to further prove why he's in no position to be offering guidance on technological issues.

And anyone who feels compelled to portray hackers as 400-lb bedroom dwellers probably shouldn't be opening their mouth in public at all.

https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20160927/07081935641/trump-offers-more-insight-his-cybersecurity-plans-10-year-old-relatives-vs-400-lb-bedroom-dwellers.shtml

[ducks]

https://assets.donaldjtrump.com/ClintonFacts.pdf
Top 50 Facts About Hillary Clinton From Trump 'Stakes Of The Election' Address

[FromWayDowntown]

That's a little bit different a question than what I think you had initially said -- which was robust tort law allows people to combat corporate practices that place profits over people, etc... To that point, I'd say that the heavy influence of insurance companies in tort litigation (which buffers true corporate exposure) with just how evil plaintiffs attorneys tend to be (look up what Thomas J. Henry has done, for example), and you'll get a glimpse why tort law isn't a good way to reform corporate mentalities.

By robust tort law, I mean a tort law that isn't neutered by provisions that make it virtually impossible for injured people to actually recover meaningful damages from tortfeasors who actually commit injurious acts.

I'm immersed in personal injury litigation on an almost daily basis. I've seen what tort reform has done to families who've suffered grievous losses only to discover that the culprits in their devastation cannot be held responsible in damages (or in any other way, really) for those losses. Bad lawsuits should be sanctioned and bad plaintiff's lawyers should be punished (as should bad defense lawyers, for that matter). But to curtail broad swaths of liability because allowing it would be "bad for business" -- a refrain of conservative tort reformers on and off the bench -- is not optimal in my view, and the notion of an unprincipled person like Trump nominating pro business acolytes who think little of the suffering of injured people would be disastrous in my opinion.

[101A]

Smile, constituents: this man may become president (http://www.vox.com/2016/9/26/13065174/first-presidential-debate-live-transcript-clinton-trump).


Look at the mess that we're in. Look at the mess that we're in. As far as the cyber, I agree to parts of what secretary Clinton said, we should be better than anybody else, and perhaps we're not. I don't know if we know it was Russia who broke into the DNC.

She's saying Russia, Russia, Russia. Maybe it was. It could also be China, it could be someone sitting on their bed that weighs 400 pounds...


Look, anyone who refers to cybersecurity or cyberwarfare as "the cyber" is probably better off not discussing this.

But Donald Trump, in last night's debate, felt compelled to further prove why he's in no position to be offering guidance on technological issues.

And anyone who feels compelled to portray hackers as 400-lb bedroom dwellers probably shouldn't be opening their mouth in public at all.

https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20160927/07081935641/trump-offers-more-insight-his-cybersecurity-plans-10-year-old-relatives-vs-400-lb-bedroom-dwellers.shtml




and when asked about "wiping" her server's hard drive, Hillary said...well you look at 1:05:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T2OJwsit0WY

[vy65]

By robust tort law, I mean a tort law that isn't neutered by provisions that make it virtually impossible for injured people to actually recover meaningful damages from tortfeasors who actually commit injurious acts.

I'm immersed in personal injury litigation on an almost daily basis. I've seen what tort reform has done to families who've suffered grievous losses only to discover that the culprits in their devastation cannot be held responsible in damages (or in any other way, really) for those losses. Bad lawsuits should be sanctioned and bad plaintiff's lawyers should be punished (as should bad defense lawyers, for that matter). But to curtail broad swaths of liability because allowing it would be "bad for business" -- a refrain of conservative tort reformers on and off the bench -- is not optimal in my view, and the notion of an unprincipled person like Trump nominating pro business acolytes who think little of the suffering of injured people would be disastrous in my opinion.

That's all very vague. Which provisions are you talking about? Damages caps? The comp bar?

The damages cap for gross negligence claims are 2x economic damages + 750k. Should they be removed? If so, would you propose limiting plaintiff's attorneys' fees so that a "meaningful" amount actually goes to the plaintiff/their family?

And even if all restrictions on tort reform were removed, you'd see an explosion in the rates charged by insurance companies to businesses. I don't know what kind of impact that would have, but I don't see why that'd be good to grease the pockets of people like Thomas J. Henry or Tony Buzbee. Having dealt with them, they are evil people who treat the people and families you mention the exact same way an evil corporation would. They are just means to a payday for those attorneys. I don't see the benefit in making it easier for those people to make more money.

[RD2191]

Of the 21 polls (including CNN's) mentioned in the Daily Mail story, Trump won 17 of them, including:
Time: Trump 58 percent, Clinton 42 percent
CBS New York: Trump 24K votes, 17,600 votes
San Diego Tribune: Trump 66 percent, Clinton 34 percent
Slate: Trump 54 percent, Clinton 46 percent
Variety: Trump 51 percent, Clinton 48 percent
Fortune: Trump 51 percent, Clinton 49 percent
CNBC: Trump 51 percent, Clinton 49 percent

The CNN poll found that 62 percent of those surveyed by the left-leaning network thought Clinton won. Trump garnered 27 percent.

Online polls :lol

[FuzzyLumpkins]

which one am i? i'm curious

Review the conversation and try again,

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Online polls :lol

:lol

[vy65]

By robust tort law, I mean a tort law that isn't neutered by provisions that make it virtually impossible for injured people to actually recover meaningful damages from tortfeasors who actually commit injurious acts.

I'm immersed in personal injury litigation on an almost daily basis. I've seen what tort reform has done to families who've suffered grievous losses only to discover that the culprits in their devastation cannot be held responsible in damages (or in any other way, really) for those losses. Bad lawsuits should be sanctioned and bad plaintiff's lawyers should be punished (as should bad defense lawyers, for that matter). But to curtail broad swaths of liability because allowing it would be "bad for business" -- a refrain of conservative tort reformers on and off the bench -- is not optimal in my view, and the notion of an unprincipled person like Trump nominating pro business acolytes who think little of the suffering of injured people would be disastrous in my opinion.

And for the record, I'm not categorically opposed to giving victims of negligent/grossly negligent corporate practices meaningful compensation for the injuries. However, given how much abuse the legal system suffers from bad plaintiffs attorneys and/or bad plaintiffs makes me err on the side off stronger tort reform. I think this is a philosophic difference you and I won't see eye to eye on.

[boutons_deux]

Trash fucked up, naturally, with his energy takes

Trump's answers on climate and energy ranged from simply wrong to strictly illegal (http://www.dailykos.com/stories/2016/9/27/1574908/-Trump-s-answers-on-climate-an-energy-ranged-from-simply-wrong-to-strictly-illegal)

TRUMP: She talks about solar panels. We invested in a solar company, our country. That was a disaster. They lost plenty of money on that one.

In fact, 2010 was the start of an explosion in solar panel sales (http://www.seia.org/news/us-solar-market-adds-more-2-gw-q2-2016) that’s seen the market grow at an astounding rate.


Growing 43 percent year over year, the U.S. saw 2,051 megawatts (MW) of solar photovoltaic (PV) installed in the second quarter of 2016. According to GTM Research and the Solar Energy Industries Association’s (SEIA) latest U.S. Solar Market Insight report, this marks the eleventh consecutive quarter in which more than a gigawatt (GW) of PV was installed.


By 2011, there were more people working in the solar industry than there were coal miners in the United States. That gap has continued to grow (http://www.thesolarfoundation.org/national/) over the years. At this point, there are at least four times as many solar workers as coal miners, and while mining jobs continue to fall, solar now accounts for more than 1 percent of all new jobs.

While Trump is insisting that “our energy policies are a disaster,” the truth is that American energy is more abundant, cleaner, and cheaper than it has ever been. Under President Obama, the United States produced more of its own energy than at any time since 1971.

The worst thing was something Trump had said before, and it came as he wandered through Iraq.


TRUMP: Or, as I've been saying for a long time, and I think you'll agree, because I said it to you once, had we taken the oil -- and we should have taken the oil -- ISIS would not have been able to form either, because the oil was their primary source of income. And now they have the oil all over the place, including the oil -- a lot of the oil in Libya, which was another one of her disasters.


First, ISIS is not in control of any oil fields in Libya. ISIS-associated fighters have killed some guards at oil facilities, but they control none of their own. None. Not one. In 2015, ISIS captured the city of Sirte and an associated dam and power plant. Then ISIS lost its training center in Libya, was kicked out of a series of towns, and last month they lost Sirte (http://www.cnn.com/2016/09/16/middleeast/sirte-libya-final-stand-isis/).

But there’s a bigger problem with Trump’s statement than just inaccuracies on who controls what.

What Trump is arguing for here is a war crime. (http://www.mediaite.com/online/trump-argues-united-states-should-have-carried-out-war-crime-in-iraq/) And it’s not the first time he has suggested it.

P.R. nightmare aside, there’s a very good reason the Bush and Obama administrations did not just take Iraq’s oil: doing so would have violated several treaties ratified by the Unites States and constituted a war crime.

The U.S. may have kept the spoils of war “in the old days,” but not since 1907.

The Hague Conventions banned the seizure of enemy property except when absolutely necessary.

Article 23 (g) in particular states that it is “especially forbidden” to “destroy or seize the enemy’s property, unless such destruction or seizure be imperatively demanded by the necessities of war.”

Given the U.S. military’s extensive resources– and that Trump wanted to use the proceeds to pay widows– it’s hard to argue that seizing Iraqi oil would have been a military necessity.


That Donald Trump can suggest a war crime and it doesn’t even make the list of issues drawing media attention says something about the number of times Donald Trump simply failed in the first debate.

However, this is not an issue that can be allowed to sink, because—along with torturing and attacking terrorists’ families—Trump will come back to it again.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2016/09/27/1574908/-Trump-s-answers-on-climate-an-energy-ranged-from-simply-wrong-to-strictly-illegal?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+dailykos%2Findex+%28Daily+Kos %29

[FromWayDowntown]

That's all very vague. Which provisions are you talking about? Damages caps? The comp bar?

The damages cap for gross negligence claims are 2x economic damages + 750k. Should they be removed? If so, would you propose limiting plaintiff's attorneys' fees so that a "meaningful" amount actually goes to the plaintiff/their family?

I'd start with things that ultimately serve to just forestall or eliminate litigation. In Texas, that would be things like the ridiculous impediments that exist in the current version of the Texas Med Mal statute; the onerous Certificate of Merit requirement in Chapter 150 of the Civil Practice and Remedies Code, which can (remarkably) be invoked at any time without a right to remedy; the insulating provisions of Chapter 95 of the Civil Practice and Remedies Code for landowners, even when the foster environments that result in injury; and allowing a civil defendant to shift responsibility for a lawsuit to an empty chair that could have never been made a party to a lawsuit. There are others, and my list is just limited to Texas.

Tort law should be fair to all parties, not preclusive to injured parties.


And even if all restrictions on tort reform were removed, you'd see an explosion in the rates charged by insurance companies to businesses.

That is, indeed, the logic that supports tort reform -- "if the little guy gets hurt and sues, he'll damage a business and we can't have that, so let's just stop the little guy from suing and we'll just assume that market forces will compel humanity in corporations."

And saying that experience with two (or even two hundred) shady lawyers justifies limiting the rights of citizens to obtain recompense for actual harms done to them is like using a nuclear bomb to eradicate an ant hill. If the problem is with the lawyers, then be more careful with the regulation of lawyers, even if it means regulating their earnings in some socialistic way. But don't regulate lawyers on the backs of injured people who need to be made whole and are denied that because people don't like plaintiff's lawyers. And while I get what you're saying about attorney's fees, but it's remarkable to me that while we are perfectly willing to put what are essentially price controls on legal services, there's a vehement refusal to do that to professionals in any other walk of life.

[Spurminator]

Of the 21 polls (including CNN's) mentioned in the Daily Mail story, Trump won 17 of them, including:
Time: Trump 58 percent, Clinton 42 percent
CBS New York: Trump 24K votes, 17,600 votes
San Diego Tribune: Trump 66 percent, Clinton 34 percent
Slate: Trump 54 percent, Clinton 46 percent
Variety: Trump 51 percent, Clinton 48 percent
Fortune: Trump 51 percent, Clinton 49 percent
CNBC: Trump 51 percent, Clinton 49 percent

The CNN poll found that 62 percent of those surveyed by the left-leaning network thought Clinton won. Trump garnered 27 percent.

Equally scientifically, #TrumpWon has been trending on Twitter all day, so we should probably just go ahead and call the election.

[FromWayDowntown]

And for the record, I'm not categorically opposed to giving victims of negligent/grossly negligent corporate practices meaningful compensation for the injuries. However, given how much abuse the legal system suffers from bad plaintiffs attorneys and/or bad plaintiffs makes me err on the side off stronger tort reform. I think this is a philosophic difference you and I won't see eye to eye on.

Tort reform as a method to curtail bad lawsuits is a lazy approach to the problem you identify. If there are bad plaintiffs and bad lawyers (a concern that is not limited solely to those who prosecute actions on behalf of injured people), then use existing procedural and disciplinary devices to punish them when they've done wrong. Tort reformers act sometimes as if there's no cure to litigation problems other than just pulling the plug on litigation; that's fundamentally wrong, as a matter of law. I believe that the "oh, plaintiffs' lawyers are bad" has become a crutch to push the intent of the law into something that the public will view more palatably and perhaps join the chorus.

At the end of the day, though, tort reform is about creating an environment where business can do mostly as it wishes, with only self-imposed regard for the welfare of citizens, by ensuring that when something goes wrong and someone gets hurt, the burden of that falls somewhere other than the bottom line.

I do agree that we're unlikely to see eye-to-eye on this; and frankly, it's not really the topic at hand, so I think I'll wait for a more relevant thread to continue with this. I have enjoyed a civil and spirited conversation, though.

[boutons_deux]

Tort reform in TX essentially closed the court house door for 1000s of plaintiffs because the cap dissuaded lawyers from taking cases.

[boutons_deux]

Donald Trump Lies About His Iraq War Support, Wishes Someone Would Call Sean Hannity

Trump said the Fox News personality can vouch for him.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/trump-iraq-war-debate_us_57e950c3e4b08d73b8327be4

[Spurminator]

It kind of blows my mind that so many people think that frivolous lawsuits are a bigger problem today than the lack of resources most of the country has to put together a meaningful and successful lawsuit.

[florige]

I think Trump's in trouble. Hillary is giving a speech at a North Carolina rally and the people there actually sound like they want to be there. Enthusiastic for once.

Big crowd, too.

Hillary also seems like she's not a fucking corpse.



She really helped herself last night I think. I was actually worried going into the debate that she would sink to Trump's level and she didn't. I think she learned her lesson in 08 while she was aggressive and nasty like Trump is now is how she was against Obama. Obama was the cooler head and the voters seemed to like that.

[Trill Clinton]

So true lol

780587324077903877

[Spurminator]

She really helped herself last night I think. I was actually worried going into the debate that she would sink to Trump's level and she didn't. I think she learned her lesson in 08 while she was aggressive and nasty like Trump is now is how she was against Obama. Obama was the cooler head and the voters seemed to like that.

She was better, and she certainly looked great next to Donald, but I'd like for her to still lean a lot less on the "You said this and it was offensive" line of attack in the next debates.

[FromWayDowntown]

I'll add one more thing that is judge-related but not tort reform related: the idea that Trump would appoint justices or judges who would find no constitutional problem with programs like stop-and-frisk is a frightening proposition to me. And it's enough to tell me an America with Trump's judges passing on the legality of policies of that sort could become a pretty frightening place for those who find themselves outside of the majority on any particular issue.

[vy65]

I'd start with things that ultimately serve to just forestall or eliminate litigation. In Texas, that would be things like the ridiculous impediments that exist in the current version of the Texas Med Mal statute; the onerous Certificate of Merit requirement in Chapter 150 of the Civil Practice and Remedies Code, which can (remarkably) be invoked at any time without a right to remedy; the insulating provisions of Chapter 95 of the Civil Practice and Remedies Code for landowners, even when the foster environments that result in injury; and allowing a civil defendant to shift responsibility for a lawsuit to an empty chair that could have never been made a party to a lawsuit. There are others, and my list is just limited to Texas.

As a global point, I strongly disagree with your characterization of tort practice in general. This goes to the point you make below about not punishing others due to the unscrupulous practices of bad attorneys. I think we'll disagree on that since, in my experience, the overwhelming majority of plaintiffs attorneys only care about making a profit and don't care about their clients. Of course there are ethical, good plaintiffs attorneys, but I'm weary of opening the floodgates for greedy assholes.

As for the legal points, again, I think you're being a little too general. I've had experience with several of those statutes and disagree with you there. As for the CoM statute. First off, it typically applies to design professionals accused of malpractice in construction defect case -- which is different than what I'm talking about, which are personal injury cases. Moreover, customary practice in construction defect litigation is to have your expert(s) produce reports. You'd have a really hard time without such a report. So I'd hardly consider it "onerous."

As for Chapter 95, that statute only serves to protect landowners who don't exercise control over the instrumentality that injured the plaintiff. What's wrong with that? I'm not entirely sure what you mean by "fostering" environments that result in injury -- the statute clearly spells out if the landowner has control + knowledge, there's a claim of liability.

As for RTP practice, I don't think your reading is right. 33.004(d) precludes a defendant from designating as a RTP someone whom limitations has expired. I've seen this been abused in the opposite context, where limitations has expired on a third party, the plaintiff amends their petition to assert additional (factual) claims against the third party (i.e., a material vendor), and the court then denies the motion for leave because limitations had expired.

I do agree, in general, that tort law (all law) should be fair to everyone.
Tort law should be fair to all parties, not preclusive to injured parties.


That is, indeed, the logic that supports tort reform -- "if the little guy gets hurt and sues, he'll damage a business and we can't have that, so let's just stop the little guy from suing and we'll just assume that market forces will compel humanity in corporations."

And saying that experience with two (or even two hundred) shady lawyers justifies limiting the rights of citizens to obtain recompense for actual harms done to them is like using a nuclear bomb to eradicate an ant hill. If the problem is with the lawyers, then be more careful with the regulation of lawyers, even if it means regulating their earnings in some socialistic way. But don't regulate lawyers on the backs of injured people who need to be made whole and are denied that because people don't like plaintiff's lawyers. And while I get what you're saying about attorney's fees, but it's remarkable to me that while we are perfectly willing to put what are essentially price controls on legal services, there's a vehement refusal to do that to professionals in any other walk of life.

I think you and I would reach a lot more common ground if contingency fees were limited to a small percentage and/or capped in someway. That will never happen though for obvious reasons. And there's still the challenge of determining what "meaningful recovery" means for a personal injury plaintiff.

[vy65]

Tort reform as a method to curtail bad lawsuits is a lazy approach to the problem you identify. If there are bad plaintiffs and bad lawyers (a concern that is not limited solely to those who prosecute actions on behalf of injured people), then use existing procedural and disciplinary devices to punish them when they've done wrong. Tort reformers act sometimes as if there's no cure to litigation problems other than just pulling the plug on litigation; that's fundamentally wrong, as a matter of law. I believe that the "oh, plaintiffs' lawyers are bad" has become a crutch to push the intent of the law into something that the public will view more palatably and perhaps join the chorus.

At the end of the day, though, tort reform is about creating an environment where business can do mostly as it wishes, with only self-imposed regard for the welfare of citizens, by ensuring that when something goes wrong and someone gets hurt, the burden of that falls somewhere other than the bottom line.

I do agree that we're unlikely to see eye-to-eye on this; and frankly, it's not really the topic at hand, so I think I'll wait for a more relevant thread to continue with this. I have enjoyed a civil and spirited conversation, though.

I think it a much better solution that using what amounts to Rule 13/FRCP 11 sanctions for frivilous pleadings. State judges in Texas are elected. They're allergic to motions for summary judgment. I don't share the optimism you have in existing procedural/disciplinary devices to curtail bad/frivolous lawsuits. Especially in the personal injury context where the threat of attorney's fees awards mean nothing. If you can think of a better alternative than tort reform, I'm happy to listen. But I have absolutely no faith that the current rules and/or the Texas Bar is in a position to regulate the thousands of lawsuits that are filed daily.

As for the rest, I agree, we'll save this for another day.

[spurraider21]

Review the conversation and try again,
be specific

[dabom]

#ChumpTrump2016 :lmao

[boutons_deux]

It kind of blows my mind that so many people think that frivolous lawsuits are a bigger problem today than the lack of resources most of the country has to put together a meaningful and successful lawsuit.

"frivolous lawsuits" is a bullshit lie from Repugs and VRWC/BigCorp lobbyists.

It was hilarious to see rightwingnuts says "frivolous lawsuits" was a reason US health care was so expensive. "studies showed" that all medical malpractice payouts were a tiny percentage of total US health care cost, and of those, an even tinier percentage could have been considered somewhat frivolous.

Why was "frivolous lawsuits" lie created? To increase the profits of insurers, on the backs of wronged patients.

TX Repugs said doctors refused to come to TX because of high insurance costs. After TX capped payouts, insurance rates didn't go down, but insurers profits went up from fewer malpractice payouts.

[boutons_deux]

LOL

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lP2c0rDEFCk

[FuzzyLumpkins]

be specific

no. working on your reading and critical thinking skills is for the better.

[spurraider21]

no. working on your reading and critical thinking skills is for the better.
so i outed myself as nobody in particular? :lol cool

[boutons_deux]

20 Lies Donald Trump Told At The First Presidential Debate

Donald Trump, already (http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-pol-trump-false-statements-20160925-snap-story.html) notorious (http://www.newsweek.com/donald-trump-jeb-bush-lie-florida-casino-gambling-502144) for (https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trumps-week-reveals-bleak-view-dubious-statements-in-alternative-universe/2016/09/24/4f8a6ff6-80cf-11e6-b002-307601806392_story.html) his (http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2016/09/when-donald-trump-lies-reporters-should-say-so.html) mind-blowing (http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/09/2016-donald-trump-fact-check-week-214287) dishonesty (http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/09/24/us/elections/donald-trump-statements.html?_r=0), repeated many of his usual lies during last night’s presidential debate—and added some new ones.

Some of Trump’s whoppers were obviously false, while others required a bit more digging to disprove.

Here are just 20 lies that Trump told during his first debate against Hillary Clinton:




Trump’s lies about his own history

Lie #1: Denies making remarks about climate change.

Clinton: “Donald thinks that climate change is a hoax perpetrated by the Chinese. I think it's real.”

Trump: “I did not—I do not say that.”

Trump has in fact said that climate change is a hoax perpetrated by the Chinese:


Follow (https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump)
https://pbs.twimg.com/profile_images/1980294624/DJT_Headshot_V2_bigger.jpgDonald J. Trump (https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump)
(https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump)✔@realDonaldTrump (https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump)

The concept of global warming was created by and for the Chinese in order to make U.S. manufacturing non-competitive.
1:15 PM - 6 Nov 2012
(https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/265895292191248385)







https://pbs.twimg.com/profile_images/1980294624/DJT_Headshot_V2_bigger.jpgDonald J. Trump (https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump)
(https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump)✔@realDonaldTrump (https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump)

Ice storm rolls from Texas to Tennessee - I'm in Los Angeles and it's freezing. Global warming is a total, and very expensive, hoax!
9:13 AM - 6 Dec 2013
(https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/408977616926830592)




https://pbs.twimg.com/profile_images/1980294624/DJT_Headshot_V2_bigger.jpgDonald J. Trump (https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump)
(https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump)✔@realDonaldTrump (https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump)

NBC News just called it the great freeze - coldest weather in years. Is our country still spending money on the GLOBAL WARMING HOAX?
5:48 PM - 25 Jan 2014 (https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/427226424987385856)


Lie #2: Denies his own proposal to negotiate down the debt.
Clinton: “You even went and suggested that you would try to negotiate down the national debt of the United States.”
Trump: “Wrong.”
Trump has said (http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/07/us/politics/donald-trumps-idea-to-cut-national-debt-get-creditors-to-accept-less.html) that as president, “I would borrow, knowing that if the economy crashed, you could make a deal” on the debt. Economists have widely panned this idea aseconomically (http://www.npr.org/2016/05/09/477350889/donald-trumps-messy-ideas-for-handling-the-national-debt-explained) catastrophic (http://www.vox.com/2016/5/6/11607464/trump-haircut-default-debt).

Lie #3: Denies supporting the Iraq War.
“I did not support the war in Iraq.”
Trump expressed support (http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2016/09/every-position-donald-trump-iraq) for the invasion of Iraq before it took place and only said that he opposed the war after the conflict had started.

Lie #4: Denies calling pregnancy a business inconvenience.
Clinton: “This is a man who is called women pigs, slobs and dogs, and someone who has said pregnancy is an inconvenience to employers.”
Trump: “I never said that.”
In 2004, Trump said (http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/trump-2004-pregnancy-inconvenience-employers-n580366) that pregnancy is “certainly an inconvenience for a business.”

Lie #5: Contradicts himself about his tax audit.
Trump: “I’m under a routine audit.”
[moments later]
Trump: “Look, I have been under audit almost for 15 years. I know a lot of wealthy people that have never been audited. I said, ‘Do you get audited ?’ I get audited almost every year. And in a way I should be complaining. I’m not even complaining. I don't mind them. It’s almost become a way of life. I get audited by the IRS. But other people don't.”
Trump has previously claimed that he is facing an audit, which he has used to justify his refusal to release his tax returns, because he’s “a strong Christian (http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/donald-trump-finds-latest-victim-anti-christian-persecution-donald-trump),” but his own lawyers say (http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/donald-trumps-lawyers-debunk-donald-trump) that the “continuous examination” of his returns is “consistent with the IRS’ practice for large and complex businesses.” Experts also point out that there isnothing preventing Trump from releasing his returns (http://www.npr.org/2016/02/26/468278769/fact-check-donald-trump-cant-release-his-taxes-while-being-audited).
Trump’s son, Donald Trump Jr., said that his father was refusing to release his return because it would be a distraction (http://triblive.com/mobile/11142102-96/trump-lies-pennsylvania) from his campaign.

Lie #6: Falsely claims he already released key financial information.
“You will learn more about Donald Trump by going down to the federal elections where I filed a one hundred and four page, essentially financial statement of sorts, the forms that they have.”
As PolitiFact notes, this information leaves out (http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/sep/26/donald-trump/donald-trump-talks-about-his-finances-first-presid/) essential information, including “details on his effective tax rate, the types of taxes he paid, and how much he gave to charity, as well as a more detailed picture of his income-producing assets.”

Lie #7: Falsely claims he only received a small loan from his father.
“My father gave me a very small loan in 1975.”
Trump has been regaling audiences with the tale that he received a “small loan of a million dollars” from his father, real estate mogul Fred Trump, when he first went into business. Far from an up-from-the-bootstraps success story, Trump regularly relied “on his father’s connections and wealth (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2016/03/03/trumps-false-claim-he-built-his-empire-with-a-small-loan-from-his-father/)” in the form of “lucrative trusts” and “numerous loans and loan guarantees, as well as his father’s connections,”

The Washington Postreports (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2016/03/03/trumps-false-claim-he-built-his-empire-with-a-small-loan-from-his-father/).

“As Trump’s casinos ran into trouble,” the Post reports, “Trump’s father also purchased $3.5 million gaming chips, but did not use them, so the casino would have enough cash to make payments on its mortgage—a transaction which casino authorities later said was an illegal loan.”
Indeed, loans Trump received from his father amounted (http://www.politico.com/blogs/2016-presidential-debate-fact-check/2016/09/clinton-is-right-about-trumps-very-small-14-million-loan-228709)to $14 million, “a value of $31 million in today’s dollars.”

Lie #8: Claims Clinton’s campaign, not Trump, started the birther movement.

“They were pressing it very hard, she failed to get the birth certificate. When I got involved, I didn't fail. I got him to give the birth certificate. So I'm satisfied with it, and I’ll tell you why I’m satisfied with it.”

There is no proof that anyone in Hillary Clinton’s 2008 campaign pushed the birther conspiracy theory. Instead, Trump cited an interview with Clinton’s former campaign manager in which she said that the campaign fired (http://www.politico.com/story/2016/09/birther-movement-founder-trump-clinton-228304) a volunteer who forwarded a birther email. He also cited a conversation that Sidney Blumenthal, who had no formal role in Clinton’s campaign, had with a McClatchy reporter, but McClatchy (http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2016/sep/20/hillary-clinton-and-birther-movement-still-no-ther/) “found no proof that Blumenthal questioned Obama’s birthplace.”

Trump’s lies about the economy and finance

Lie #9: Misleadingly claims jobs are “fleeing” abroad.
“Our jobs are fleeing the country.”
Employment has been rising (http://www.bls.gov/web/empsit/cps_charts.pdf) since the end of the Great Recession, but Trump has been using bogus statistics (http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/58-donald-trump-conspiracy-theories-and-counting-definitive-trump-conspiracy-guide#other)to claim that unemployment is actually as high as 42 percent.

Lie #10: Falsely claims China is devaluing their currency.
“You look at what China is doing to our country in terms of making our product, they're devaluing their currency and there's nobody in our government to fight them.”
In fact, China has of late been doing the opposite of devaluing its currency.
Ian Talley of The Wall Street Journal notes (http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2016/09/15/donald-trump-is-a-few-years-behind-on-the-china-currency-problem/) that while “few U.S. economists would disagree China kept the yuan undervalued over the last two decades,” now, “many economists—including some of the strongest advocates for action against Beijing s—say the yuan is now close to fair value. Beijing appreciated the yuan from 2005 to 2014…. In fact, over the last two years, Beijing burned through nearly a quarter of what was once a $4 trillion currency stockpile to prevent the yuan from falling against the dollar.”

Lie #11 : Baselessly claims the Federal Reserve is “doing political” by not increasing interest rates.
“This Janet Yellen of the Fed, the Fed is doing political by keeping interest rates at this level. And believe me the day Obama goes off and he leaves and he goes out to the golf course for the rest of his life to play golf, when they raise interest rates, you are going to see some very bad things happen because the Fed is not doing their job. The Fed is being more political than Secretary Clinton.”
The Federal Reserve is an independent institution and Trump has yet to offer any evidence that Federal Reserve chair Janet Yellen is taking her cues from President Obama, a claim that he has been making for weeks.

Trump’s lies about national security

Lie #12 : Absurdly claims Clinton has fought ISIS for decades.
“No wonder you’ve been fighting ISIS your entire adult life.”
ISIS was created out of the Islamic State of Iraq, which was founded in 2006 (https://www.wilsoncenter.org/article/timeline-rise-and-spread-the-islamic-state), and was in turn the descendent of Al Qaeda in Iraq, established in 2004. Hillary Clinton is 68 years old and graduated from college in 1969.

Lie #13 : Claims other countries don’t pay us for military defense.
“We defend Germany. We defend South Korea. We defend Saudi Arabia. We defend countries. They do not pay us what they should be paying us because we are providing tremendous service and we’re losing a fortune.”
The U.S. is hardly “losing a fortune” (http://www.factcheck.org/2016/04/u-s-foreign-military-support/) in military aid.

Lie #14 : Falsely claims NATO allies aren’t paying the U.S.
Trump: “We pay approximately 73 percent of the cost of NATO.”
Not even close (http://www.politico.com/blogs/2016-presidential-debate-fact-check/2016/09/trump-is-way-off-on-how-much-of-natos-budget-is-paid-by-the-us-228738) .

Lie #15: Falsely claims the U.S. paid Iran $400 million.
“One of the great giveaways of all time, of all time, including four hundred million dollars in cash nobody’s ever seen that before that turned out to be wrong.”
As the New York Times notes (http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/27/us/politics/fact-check-debate.html), the money Trump referenced “was Iran’s money, for military goods never delivered to Iran after the Iranian Revolution.”

Trump’s lies about crime

Lie #16: Absurdly suggests America is experiencing a crime wave.
“We have a situation where we have our inner cities, African-American, Hispanics, are living in hell because it's so dangerous. You walk down the street, you get shot. In Chicago, they’ve had thousands of shootings, thousands, since January first. Thousands of shootings. And I’m saying where is this? Is this a war-torn countr y?”
Far from a crime wave, FactCheck.org points out (http://www.factcheck.org/2016/07/dueling-claims-on-crime-trend/) that the violent crime rate [] “is lower than it has been since 1970” and “the murder and nonnegligent manslaughter rate nationwide, at 4.5 in 2014, was at its lowest point since at least the early 1960s.”

Lie #17: Baselessly says stop and frisk “worked very well” in New York.
“You do stop and frisk, which worked very well—Mayor Giuliani is here — worked very well in New York.”
Katherine Krueger of TPM writes (http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/donald-trump-lester-holt-stop-and-frisk) that a “2013 report from the New York attorney general found that out of 2.4 million stops by police between 2009 and 2012, the stops resulted in a 3 percent conviction rate, and just 0.1 percent of the total stops went on to a violent crime conviction.” Other cities that did not use stop and frisk experienced similar dips in crime, and one study, according to the Washington Post (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/09/22/donald-trump-claims-new-yorks-stop-and-frisk-policy-reduced-crime-the-data-disagree/) , “found that a high rate of stop-and-frisks was not associated with reduced crime when the practice was indiscriminate.” New York City’s crime rate continued to fall (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/nypd-low-crime-first-quarter-2016_us_5702b0dae4b0a06d580653e3) after stop-and-frisk was ended.

Lie #18: Falsely claims the murder rate in New York went up after the end of stop and frisk.
Clinton: “Well, it's also fair to say, if we’re going to talk about mayors, that under the current mayor crime has continued to drop, including murders. So there is—“
Trump: “You're wrong.”
Clinton: “No, I'm not.”
Trump: “Murders are up.”
Trump is wrong: Homicides in New York have been on the decline (http://www.newsday.com/news/new-york/homicides-in-nyc-continue-fall-down-13-so-far-in-2016-1.11866215).

Lie #19: Falsely claims stop and frisk wasn’t ruled unconstitutional.
Lester Holt: “Stop and frisk was ruled unconstitutional in New York because it largely singled out black and Hispanic young men.”
Trump: “No, you're wrong. It went before a judge who was a very against-police judge. It was taken away from her and our mayor, our new mayor, refused to go forward with the case. They would have won an appeal.”
Trump is wrong: Stop and frisk was ruled unconstitutional in 2013 (http://www.politico.com/blogs/2016-presidential-debate-fact-check/2016/09/trump-is-wrong-stop-and-frisk-was-ruled-unconstitutional-228729) .

Lie #20: Falsely claims ICE endorsed him.
“I was is endorsed by ICE. They’ve never endorsed anybody before — on immigration. I was just endorsed by ICE.”
ICE is a federal agency and has not endorsed Trump, or any other candidate for that matter.

http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/20-lies-donald-trump-told-first-presidential-debate


:lol

[ducks]

Donald J. Trump ‏@realDonaldTrump
In the last 24 hrs. we have raised over $13M from online donations and National Call Day, and we’re still going! Thank you America! #MAGA

[boutons_deux]

Donald J. Trump ‏@realDonaldTrump
In the last 24 hrs. we have raised over $13M from online donations and National Call Day, and we’re still going! Thank you America! #MAGA

He's still $50M+ behind Hillary, and I'm sure she's, and supporting Super PACs, are hauling in plenty of $Ms to stay in way out in front.

[RandomGuy]

The Verdict: How It Played in Peoria
PEORIA, Illinois — The most jarring thing about leaving D.C. to watch this debate in central Illinois was the lack of venom and anger in a room populated by voters of opposite stripes. Here at the Michel Student Center at Bradley University, the College Republicans and College Democrats managed to organize a joint pizza party that attracted plenty of unaffiliated students as well. Generally, the students spent more time laughing together at the candidates than pointing fingers at each other.

Shortly after the debate concluded, I convened a totally unscientific focus group of five undecided Bradley students, including one who came in leaning toward Trump, one who was leaning toward Johnson, two who were inclined toward Clinton, and one who wasn’t sure whether he would vote at all. There seemed to be a big disconnect between their impressions and pundits’ obsession with winners and losers. In short, they were galled by what struck them as a lack of substance.

All five nodded in agreement when Valerie, a 19-year-old Clinton leaner, complained that the candidates spent too much time litigating the past (business records, emails) rather than addressing health care, education and the environment in detail. The Johnson leaner and the maybe-voter also disliked Trump’s interruptions and lack of policy specifics, and four of the five agreed that the way Trump handled the race question just didn’t bear any resemblance to their own experiences.

The students were split on Lester Holt’s performance as moderator. The Trump leaner complained that Holt scrutinized Trump far more than Clinton. Two who had supported Bernie Sanders in the primary found the one-moderator format troublesome, arguing that Trump overpowered Holt at times and that Holt could have used backup. But all five of these students badly want Clinton and Trump to focus more on the future and less on each other’s baggage.


SETH MASKET 10:46 PM
It’s not obvious to me what the 10-second takeaway moment is from this debate. But there was one rather telling exchange on the subject of nuclear weapons that stood out to me. Holt asked Trump a question about changes to the no-first-use policy on nuclear weapons. Trump’s answer would generously be described as rambling, going from China to Yemen to payments to Iran to Israel.

Clinton responded with this:

Words matter when you run for president, and they really matter when you are president. And I want to reassure our allies in Japan and South Korea and elsewhere, that we have mutual defense treaties and we will honor them. It is essential that America’s word be good. And so I know that this campaign has caused some questioning and some worries on the part of many leaders across the globe. I’ve talked with a number of them. But I want to — on behalf of myself, and I think on behalf of a majority of the American people — say that our word is good.

In this, she was essentially apologizing to America’s allies for Trump’s words. That’s a bit longer than a classic soundbite, but it could be worked into an effective ad and some devastating news coverage.

Ben Casselman
BEN CASSELMAN 10:45 PM
The very vague pre-announced topics made it hard to know what to expect tonight, substance-wise. In the end, we essentially got two debates: one on the economy and one on foreign policy, with a fairly extended discussion of crime in the middle. That left some surprising gaps: almost no discussion of immigration (Trump’s signature issue), health care (a huge topic during the last election) or energy (apart from Trump’s claim that the U.S. should have “taken the oil” from Iraq and Libya). Maybe they’ll come up more in the next debate.

Carl Bialik
CARL BIALIK 10:44 PM
Pressed by Holt to answer the final question about whether he’d respect the outcome of the election if he loses, Trump ended the debate by saying, “If she wins, I will absolutely support her.” That might feel like an unremarkable answer, and it would be in most U.S. presidential elections. But it’s notable because of Trump’s repeated claims this summer that the election would be “rigged” against him.

Julia Azari
JULIA AZARI 10:44 PM
Returning To The Audience Question
As the debate winds down, I’d like to go back to the question from earlier — who’s the audience for this debate?

Given the unfavorable ratings for both candidates, it seems like one important audience is the type of voter who would like to vote for a major-party candidate but who doesn’t like Trump or Clinton. My sense is that this probably matters more for Trump than for Clinton. She’s a more conventional candidate, and we all know that there are a bunch of ways in which Trump is not — support from some party leaders has been hesitant (or nonexistent), and his policy positions, his history and his path to nomination have all been unusual.

By this measure, Trump did pretty well. He interrupted a lot and made lots of statements that his opponents won’t like, but he didn’t do anything outrageous or different from what he’s done in the past. His statements were fluid. There was no steak salesmanship. It’s probably too early to say, but for a voter who doesn’t want to stay home or vote for a party they don’t normally support, this seems like the kind of performance that would allow you to pull the “R” lever.
http://fivethirtyeight.com/live-blog/first-presidential-debate-election-2016/

[RandomGuy]

The Fuckwits will approve him a couple days after Hillary wins, IMO.

Not that easy.

She wins election, but Obama is still president. Were I Obama, I would simply withdraw nomination right before, or right after election.

You are giving the fuckwits too much credit anyway.

[RandomGuy]

We don't know her policy right now and won't until she would actually be governing. Her husband blindly following Greenspan in not regulating cds as insurance was pretty awful, and directly caused the great recession that we still haven't really bounced back from 8 years later.

Regulation of insurance is done 99% at the state level.

Had a coworker quip once that some of them really should have been regulated by the Nevada Gaming Commission.

[RandomGuy]

HRC a victim? If you think HRC is an honest, good person I have a problem with you. Not as much as I have a problem with Trump supporters, but damn.

You are straight up lying to yourself if you are pretending like HRC is trustworthy. She lies, shifts her opinions to help in the moment for gain and has a history of supporting things that have proven to be harmful.

Sure, compared to trump she's an angel. But that is not the question. HRC standing on her own, not compared to Trump, I feel is a pretty deplorable person too with plenty of skeletons in her closet.

What she has going for her is table etiquette. She at least knows how to lie through her teeth to keep tensions down and that is important as a President I guess.

I just have stopped buying the HRC is a demonic, maniacal psychopath meme. That schtick is drummed and drummed and drummed, and I go looking for the evidence, and come up far short of anything that could paint her as some malignant evil.

I also don't mind people changing their minds. I am far more suspicious of those who never do that, like the intellectual gnats that comprise the evangelical vote, who don't change their mind no matter how much evidence you put in front of them. I am also enough of a realist to know that sometimes you have to put your finger to the wind and shift positions as a politician. Whether that says something negative depends on the circumstances as well.

So once again, I am left with vague "skeletons in the closet". What skeletons? What actions?

What concrete action has Hillary Clinton undertaken that is morally suspect? Seriously. Name something.

I am not defending her by any stretch here, but neither am I going to buy into her enemies propaganda without doing some basic skeptical, critical thinking.

The more I see the more I am reminded of the "repeat the lie enough until everybody accepts it as truth" trope.

[RandomGuy]

assets.donaldjtrump.com/ClintonFacts.pdf[/url]
Top 50 Facts About Hillary Clinton From Trump 'Stakes Of The Election' Address

trump.com "facts" :lmao

Seriously, Trump has taken lying to a whole new level this election. It is rather astonishing.

[RandomGuy]

If you say so. My experience is that tort reform is generally not good for average citizens.



I don't think I said that I was hoping for conservatives, so if you're agreeing with me about the idea that conservative judges and justices would be good, we don't actually have an agreement.

Tort reform has overwhelmingly benefited businesses over people. I got to peek under the hood of a medical liability insurance carrier once, including some of the insurer's executives discussions with their lawyers.

What I saw there was disturbing to me in a few cases.

[RandomGuy]

She really helped herself last night I think. I was actually worried going into the debate that she would sink to Trump's level and she didn't. I think she learned her lesson in 08 while she was aggressive and nasty like Trump is now is how she was against Obama. Obama was the cooler head and the voters seemed to like that.

+1

One of them looked presidential, one didn't.

Simple as that.

[RandomGuy]

She forgets everything. I don't know how many times I've heard her answer questions with "I don't recall", or "I can't remember". This dates back decades. She's either suffering from mad cow disease, or is some form of autistic. I was, frankly, amazed at how much she could remember during the debate. I thought it would be boring with her blank staring at the camera and shrugging her shoulders the whole time.

Ok, let's run with this.

What were you doing at 3pm, October 4th, 2013? 8pm?

[DPG21920]

Ok, let's run with this.

What were you doing at 3pm, October 4th, 2013? 8pm?

I was erasing my servers. What were you up to?

[FkLA]

FkLA (http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/member.php?u=17213) who are you voting for? Stein? Johnson?

Bernie

[ducks]

Skip to Related content




For some locals, the low-key start was a surprise.


"They're both pretty tame, I expected both of them to come out a little more aggressively," said Ian Reed, a 23-year old college student. Reed said he was not excited about either candidate and remained undecided. He said he thought the final result was "relatively even," though with Clinton delivering a more consistent performance.


Despite the fact that the bar was playing host to a Clinton watch part complete with posters and organizers, a handful of patrons said they were not supporters of the former secretary of state.


During the debate, Chris Bennett, an independent from Grantham, said he was disappointed about what he had heard from the nominees and that "both candidates are tripping over their feet."


"I don't think there was a clear winner or loser," Bennett said afterward. "I think people are going to see exactly what they want."

https://www.yahoo.com/finance/news/hampshire-residents-were-looking-trump-033305426.html

[boutons_deux]

Russian Newspapers Declare Debate Win for Hillary Clinton Over Donald Trump

http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/2016-presidential-debates/russian-newspapers-declare-debate-win-hillary-clinton-over-donald-trump-n655416?cid=sm_fb_lastword

[boutons_deux]

http://15130-presscdn-0-89.pagely.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/bd160928-701x526.jpg

[spurraider21]

Russian Newspapers Declare Debate Win for Hillary Clinton Over Donald Trump

http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/2016-presidential-debates/russian-newspapers-declare-debate-win-hillary-clinton-over-donald-trump-n655416?cid=sm_fb_lastword

but i thought trump was russia's puppet? :lol

[boutons_deux]

but i thought trump was russia's puppet? :lol

there will be a lot dead Russian journalists by the end of the week. It's the Putin Way.

[spurraider21]

there will be a lot dead Russian journalists by the end of the week. It's the Putin Way.
VLWC

[clambake]

cheeto.....pretty funny

[rmt]

I was erasing my servers. What were you up to?

Hahahaha. Does RG think that setting up private servers, destroying cel phones with a hammer and using BleachBit to destroy emails is normal behavior?

[UZER]

Hillary: Poor black people.

Trump: Yes we have a serious issue on our hands.

Hillary: Woh woh woh, how dare you bash black people!

:lol

[ducks]

Hillary I called the blacks superpredators

[Th'Pusher]

Oh no ducks...

Reddit 4chan bombard online polls to declare trump the winner

http://www.dailydot.com/layer8/trump-clinton-debate-online-polls-4chan-the-donald/

[Axl Rose]

He's still $50M+ behind Hillary, and I'm sure she's, and supporting Super PACs, are hauling in plenty of $Ms to stay in way out in front.
You should be against that, try to stay consistent

[FuzzyLumpkins]

so i outed myself as nobody in particular? :lol cool

I said you should read the whole conversation not just fixate on one line. Like I said: for the better.

[ducks]

trump.com "facts" :lmao

Seriously, Trump has taken lying to a whole new level this election. It is rather astonishing.
Yes the liberal fact checkers have

[Warlord23]

Hey ducks, can you explain Trump's statement from the debate on cyber security:


I have a son. He's 10 years old. He has computers. He is so good with these computers, it's unbelievable. The security aspect of cyber is very, very tough. And maybe it's hardly doable.

[spurraider21]

the people that are desperate to pin moral equivalency on me on a different political forum. Not sure which one you are.
how many of these people are there? link me to their profiles. i want to have some good laughs

[dabom]

Hey ducks (http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/member.php?u=13), can you explain Trump's statement from the debate on cyber security:

:lol

[spurraider21]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5BJjUv_TD2E

:lmao

[Splits]

781008282093838336

[Splits]

If someone had told me 10 years ago that the first general election presidential debate of 2016 would feature a CNN chyron that said “Awaiting the Historic Clinton-Trump Debate,” I would have thought you were crazy. If you had told me the polls would be tied going into that debate I would have thought the world had gone crazy. But that’s where we are and last night’s debate showed how far we’ve gone down the rabbit hole.
My preview of the debate yesterday (http://www.salon.com/2016/09/26/trumps-incoherent-greatest-hits-his-stream-of-nonsense-debate-style-is-tough-to-combat/) focused on the fact that Trump’s “serious” debates at the end of the primaries, when there were fewer rivals, gave us some clues about how he might perform in the main event. He was aggressively incoherent and sometimes completely unintelligible, proving repeatedly that he had absolutely no idea what he was talking about. This has actually been obvious from the beginning of his campaign if you watched his rallies and interviews. It’s just that his personality is so remarkably bizarre that I think the lack of substance is easy to overlook. (I confess I have been somewhat surprised that so many people find his rambling “braggadociousness” appealing enough (http://www.salon.com/2016/09/27/belitting-and-braggadocious-donald-trump-was-donald-trump-the-only-surprise-is-that-anyone-is-surprised/) that they fail to notice that he is ignorant about everything important to the job of president.)

In recent days with the hiring of campaign manager Kellyanne Conway and CEO Steve Bannon as well as sage advice from his pal Roger Ailes, Trump has been tamed just enough to read a stump speech on a Teleprompter, and he’s sounded a bit more intelligible. So there was always the possibility that he would have done a little bit of prep work, read a briefing paper or two and otherwise taken the debate seriously. It is the most important office in the world, after all. It wouldn’t hurt to do a little cramming on the details before appearing in front of 100 million people to make the case for why you are the best person for the job.

Trump’s campaign made it very clear that he wasn’t doing any of that, but I think many political professionals assumed there was a large element of spin involved. He had to have at least done some practice debates, right? But it turns out that for the first time his campaign was telling the whole truth. Last night Donald Trump demonstrated not only that he didn’t prepare but that he has no underlying knowledge of the subjects a president is required to know. He simply tried to bluff his way through with incoherent misdirection (http://www.salon.com/2016/09/27/donald-trumps-biggest-lies-during-the-first-presidential-debate/), hostility and sarcasm, even as he made the absurd claimed that his temperament is his best quality. He gave the worst debate performance of his short political career. In fact, it may have been the worst debate performance of any political career.

I wasn’t sure whether or not Hillary Clinton would be able to handle him. It’s disorienting to see someone spout gibberish at such an important event, particularly when it’s combined with Trump’s narcissism, as when he oddly asserted that Clinton only started talking about jobs in response to his candidacy, or that NATO created a terrorism policy because he goaded them into it. (That’s ludicrous, of course.) But she handled him well, with humor and authority, proving that it can be done.

The reviews all seemed to indicate (http://www.salon.com/2016/09/27/twitter-goes-bananas-from-hillary-clintons-pantsuit-to-donald-trumps-snorting-the-social-media-hits-and-misses/) that Trump’s best moments were his early comments on trade policy. Which is probably true but it’s actually not saying much. He name-checked some Rust Belt states where the issue is particularly salient, which shows that he may have had some coaching, but his obsession with the subject, to the exclusion of all other economic concerns, is one-dimensional to say the least. In fact, it doesn’t seem to be economic at all, and is better seen as an illustration of his crude nationalism. He shows no interest in workers as people. They are nothing more than statistics that prove America is being screwed over by foreigners. Trump seems to think that screwing workers is an American billionaire’s prerogative.


In fact, Clinton deftly turned the tables on his populism by painting him out as a rich Republican swell just like all the rest, hitting him repeatedly on his business practices and failures. As Washington Post reporter Robert Costa said on MSNBC after the debate:


She yanked him toward the Republican Party. She said, “You’re not going to be able to run as an outsider, you can’t be a populist.” She said, “You’re just like George W. Bush, you’re trickle-down economics like Ronald Reagan, you’re supply-side, Trumped up. This is a candidate whose real appeal is that he’s non ideological, that he’s not running as a partisan Mitt Romney, George W. Bush Republican, and she said “I’m not going to let you.”


I don’t know whether anyone was convinced by that but it was one of many moments that confused Trump and pushed him off his game. When Clinton hit him for saying he hoped for the housing collapse, he reacted with a very plutocratic answer: “That’s called business, by the way.” He made the same mistake later when she pointed out that there were times when he hadn’t paid any taxes by saying, “That makes me smart.” These were just two of many errors, lies and flashes of ignorance, temper and petulance that characterized Trump’s embarrassing performance.

The simple fact is that Hillary Clinton dominated him. The debate was all her thrusting and him parrying over and over again. By the end he was visibly slumping and seemed confused. And since being a “winner” is so central to his candidacy and his personality, the loss is even more devastating.

The pundits are all wondering if that means Trump will bother to prepare for the next two debates (if he deigns to show up at all). But that may not be something he’s actually capable of doing. His former co-writer Tony Schwartz, who knows him well, says that Trump has an extremely short attention span and is unable to study or learn in any concentrated way. But just because he has no interest in or ability to learn any substance, it doesn’t mean Trump won’t make changes. From his comments at the end of the debate and later in the spin room, it appears that he believes Clinton wasn’t “nice,” so he plans to attack her personally by bringing up her husband’s infidelities at their next meeting. He won’t be better informed or more controlled, he’s just going to take the gloves off. But she’s got a much thicker skin than he does, and unless he learns how to take a hit it’s highly likely she’ll be able to get the best of him next time too. It turns out that along with a thin skin, Trump has a glass jaw.

[benefactor]

:lol

https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=884731954996460&id=718275704975420

[pgardn]

781008282093838336

Christ...

She appears very well rounded from a standup position... Quick hands, nice kick, good balance, ground and pound, check that off.

[pgardn]

Yes the liberal fact checkers have

Trump is a serial liar. It's pathological as he cannot even distinguish between his lies and reality anymore. And he has done this for most of his adult life. But I understand ideologically the candidate meshes with the idea the US is falling apart.

Dear Board; there are things to ponder here:

Trump is convinced the US is corrupt to its core. He believes Washington is awash with insiders, and that we have made horrible free trade agreements that have screwed the American worker. Further, Trump believes we need more of an isolationist foreign policy. These are big issues, huge issues. Clinton has a very different view IMO.

Question: Why is it that Boots and Ducks are not on the same team?

[RandomGuy]

Seriously, Trump has taken lying to a whole new level this election. It is rather astonishin


Yes the liberal fact checkers have

http://s2.quickmeme.com/img/41/4181e3c45e38da71d3a0f60eb67b360b531d5b9bb049c5b079 d3ad0ad9fc6aa1.jpg

:lol

[RandomGuy]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5BJjUv_TD2E

:lmao

Seriously, I had to wonder if he was coked up.

A rich white business guy who came of age in the 1980s. Not too far of a stretch.

[boutons_deux]

Hillary's numbers among non-collegewhites go WAY up post-debate (in one focus group) (http://www.dailykos.com/stories/2016/9/28/1575179/-Hillary-s-numbers-among-non-college-whites-go-WAY-up-post-debate-in-one-focus-group)

Clinton produced impressive gains in the vote, squeezing the third party candidates and raising intensity of support with white unmarried women and white working class voters. That alone would be a big night. But just as important,

she shifted these voters’ perceptions of her as a person on such key attributes as trustworthiness, having good plans for the economy, jobs, and looking out for the middle class. There was also a huge shift in her overall favorability (+33 points).

The white working class story is almost as impressive.

Their lines spiked all through the debate and their favorability towards Clinton also shifted 33 points.

The 2-way vote margin shifted 16 points as the 3rd party vote got squeezed [from 47-38 Clinton, to 57-32].

And at the end of the debate she won her biggest gains with these working class voters on the economy, keeping America strong and having the right approach to taxes. Clinton could not have hoped for better.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2016/09/28/1575179/-Hillary-s-numbers-among-non-college-whites-go-WAY-up-post-debate-in-one-focus-group?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+dailykos%2Findex+%28Daily+Kos %29

Trash and Trash supporters are so screwed, gonna eat shit big time.

[RandomGuy]

"I cannot say, I have to respect the person, who is not me."



Trump: "Secretary, you have no plan."
Clinton: "In fact, I have written a book about it.


Clinton: "I have a feeling that by, the end of this evening, I'm going to be blamed for everything that's ever happened."
Trump: "Why not? Why not?"
Clinton: "Yeah, 'Why not?' You know, just join the debate by saying more crazy things."


Clinton: "Broad-based, inclusive growth is what we need in America, not more advantages for people at the very top—"
Trump: "Typical. Politician. All talk. No action. Sounds good. Doesn't work. Never gonna happen."


Trump: "Our country has tremendous problems. We're a debtor nation. We're a serious debtor nation. And we have a country that needs new roads, new tunnels, new bridges, new airports, new schools, new hospitals. And we don't have the money, because it's been squandered on so many of your ideas."
Clinton: "And maybe because you haven't paid any federal income tax for a lot of years."


Clinton: "You call yourself the King of Debt. You talk about leverage. You even at one time suggested that you would try to negotiate down the national debt of the United States."
Trump: “Wrong. Wrong.” (He did.)
Clinton: "Well, sometimes there's not a direct transfer of skills from business to government, but sometimes what happened in business would be really bad for government."

Clinton: "Donald thinks that climate change is a hoax perpetrated by the Chinese. I think it's real."
Trump: "I did not. I did not. I do not say that." (He did.)

[RandomGuy]

Yes the liberal fact checkers have


Clinton: "Donald thinks that climate change is a hoax perpetrated by the Chinese. I think it's real."
Trump: "I did not. I did not. I do not say that." (He did.)

HERE IS THE LINK TO DONALD TRUMP CLAIMING CLIMATE CHANGE IS A HOAX PERPETRATED BY THE CHINESE ON TWITTER. (https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/265895292191248385)

[FromWayDowntown]

HERE IS THE LINK TO DONALD TRUMP CLAIMING CLIMATE CHANGE IS A HOAX PERPETRATED BY THE CHINESE ON TWITTER. (https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/265895292191248385)

The important thing to remember is that the objective truth of Donald Trump's views on any particular subject should not be assessed in light of what he actually said or wrote about it. He's an entertainer, really, and he just says things to drive the brand.

So, the fact checkers can get bogged down in the things that are actually on the record, but what really matters in proving the depth of Donald's Trump truth on any particular subject is what Donald Trump was thinking and, more importantly, what he remembers now about what he was thinking a long time ago.

And, really, in that light, can you actually dispute the truth of his claims to have believed or not believed certain things many years ago?

[/blue]

[DarrinS]

"you've been fighting ISIS your entire adult life."

I really like that people fact-check obvious hyperbole.

[tlongII]

The important thing to remember is that the objective truth of Donald Trump's views on any particular subject should not be assessed in light of what he actually said or wrote about it. He's an entertainer, really, and he just says things to drive the brand.

So, the fact checkers can get bogged down in the things that are actually on the record, but what really matters in proving the depth of Donald's Trump truth on any particular subject is what Donald Trump was thinking and, more importantly, what he remembers now about what he was thinking a long time ago.

And, really, in that light, can you actually dispute the truth of his claims to have believed or not believed certain things many years ago?

[/blue]

I'm not sure if you're serious or not, but there is a lot of truth to that imo.

[boutons_deux]

The Biggest Choke of Trump’s Political Life:

6 Reasons His Debate With Hillary Was an Unmitigated Disaster

1. The financial markets don’t trust the Donald.

Soon after the financial markets opened on Tuesday, stocks rose in response to Clinton’s performance. Considering she told the nation she would be raising taxes on the wealthiest Americans including Wall Street, that is remarkable. As Marketwatch.com reported (http://ttp//www.marketwatch.com/story/us-stocks-set-for-upbeat-open-as-markets-cheer-clinton-debate-win-2016-09-27?siteid=yhoof2), the Dow Jones rose “more than 100 points following Clinton-Trump debate.” They quoted portfolio managers like Diane Jaffee at TCW, who said, “Investors have a better idea about policies of Hillary Clinton, so any sign she is closer to the presidency is a boost.” But it wasn’t just American capitalists. The Mexican peso jumped more than 2 percent against the dollar. “The peso has been acting as a gauge of the presidential election sentiment on the theory that a victory for Trump will at the very least result in less trade between the two countries, if not the building of a barrier on the U.S. southern border,” wrote Marketwatch. People who know business know they don’t want Trump.

2. Trump’s “biggest choke of his political life.”

The New York Post has been very pro-Trump. But on Tuesday, columnist John Podhoretz (http://nypost.com/author/john-podhoretz/) wrote one of the clearest analyses of what went down, including a list of Trump outbursts that he predicted Clinton will use against him.

“By the end of the 95 minutes, Trump was reduced to a sputtering mess blathering about Rosie O’Donnell and about how he hasn’t yet said the mean things about Hillary that he is thinking,”

Podhoretz wrote (http://nypost.com/2016/09/27/trumps-debate-incompetence-a-slap-in-the-face-to-his-supporters/).

“Most important, he set ticking time bombs for himself over the next six weeks…

As she hammered him on his tax returns, he handed her an inestimable gift by basically saying he pays no federal taxes despite his billions…

Clinton quoted him saying in 2006 that he hoped for a housing meltdown because it would provide buying opportunities and thereby goaded him into saying ‘that’s called business, by the way.’”

Podhoretz continued (http://nypost.com/2016/09/27/trumps-debate-incompetence-a-slap-in-the-face-to-his-supporters/),

“His reply to Hillary’s recitation of the fact he’d begun his career settling a Justice Department lawsuit about racial discrimination in Trump housing was that there was ‘no admission of guilt,’ which is the sort of thing the villain said at the end of ‘LA Law’ and sounded no better in real life.”

He didn’t stop there, but said Trump betrayed his base and accused him of doing the very thing that Trump slams his opponents for—caving under pressure. “Even when he could have taken her down, he was so incompetent he didn’t go for it.

A question about cybersecurity was the perfect opportunity to hammer Clinton on her outrageous mishandling of classified information. Instead, he went into a bizarre digression in which he alternately wondered whether his son Barron might grow up to become a hacker and defended Vladimir Putin from the accusation Russia had tapped into the Democratic National Committee’s emails (which the FBI says almost certainly happened). That has to count as the biggest choke of his political life.”

3. The reality TV star didn’t play to the camera.

Former CBS-TV anchorman Dan Rather no longer has to play the straight newsman and his observations on Facebook can be riveting. The candidates brought their personas to the debate, which he contrasted by first describing their stage mannerisms. “From the very beginning, the body language tonight was striking,” hewrote (https://www.facebook.com/theDanRather/posts/10157478224025716). “Hillary Clinton, the first woman ever to be on this stage was calm and substantive.

Donald Trump interrupted often and slouched and

sneered as he turned to address her. This is what Trump’s fans like about him, playing the alpha male at all costs.

Clinton seemed completely unflustered, which is what her fans love about her. How this all plays to the majority of viewers and voters at home will be in the eyes of the beholder.”

But then the longtime TV pro observed that Trump didn’t play to the camera, which, remarkably gave the nation an unfiltered glimpse of what a President Trump could be like. “I was surprised by how much this man who has made so much of the means of television spent not looking into the camera, but preoccupied with his adversary,” Rather wrote.

“Trump came across as amped, a pacing tiger ready to pounce on every answer. His interruptions suggests little regard to the rules. He’s itching for a fight. Wants to swing wildly.”

America’s founders hated “demagogues who would appeal to mankind’s basest instincts,” Rather concluded (https://www.facebook.com/theDanRather/posts/10157478224025716).

“Donald Trump relishes in all of these impulses. For him they are instinctual and a prescription for success… The voters have all the information they need.”

4. Trump launches new sexist tirade against women.

Trump seemed even more out-of-control on Tuesday morning.

First he complained that he had a defective microphone, :lol which magnified his sniffling (which prompted a social media storm pondering (http://www.msnbc.com/kate-snow/watch/howard-dean-stands-by-cocaine-tweet-774195267656) if he had used cocaine before the debate).

As Clinton told reporters Tuesday, if you’re blaming the microphone, you’re in trouble.

But more importantly, Trump ignited

a new misogynist line of attack by going on national TV and attacking a former Miss Universe for gaining weight

—after Clinton brought her up during the debate :lol IT'S A TRAP! :lol as an example of another woman who had poorly treated, in this case, a member of a key demographic that may help Clinton win Florida and Nevada: Latinas. As the Washington Post’s Greg Sargent tweeted (https://twitter.com/ThePlumLineGS/status/780766051256635392?lang=en),

“Clinton camp just lured Trump into ridiculing a woman’s weight. Amazingly, he took the bait on national TV.”

Sargent’s WaPo column elaborated, “On Fox and Friends (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ihO5KootGjY) today, having slept on the exchange in question, Trump defended himself this way: “I know that person. That person was a Miss Universe person. And

she was the worst we ever had, the worst, the absolute worst, she was impossible… She gained a massive amount of weight, and it was a real problem. We had a real problem. Not only that, her attitude… Hillary went back into the years and found the girl and talked about her like she was Mother Teresa, and it wasn’t quite that way.

But that’s okay.”

By midday Tuesday, Alicia Machado was on her way to being a media star—much like

the Khan family, who lost a soldier son in Iraq and told the Democratic Convention that Trump had no respect for Muslims nor the U.S. Constitution. Trump subsequently attacked them, violating an unspoken rule in politics that one never degrades a deceased veteran.

Machado had a national press call orchestrated by the Clinton campaign, and was featured in a Cosmopolitan magazine photo shoot (http://www.cosmopolitan.com/politics/a3887093/alicia-machado-miss-universe-donald-trump/). Once again, Clinton showed that she was the better strategist and combatant than Trump, provoking and entrapping the supposedly great dealmaker.

5. Trump and allies claims instant poll victory, but real conservatives say not so fast.

As expected, Fox News found a tenuous and twisted way to declare Trump the debate victor on Tuesday. Fox News Politics had this headline (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/09/27/online-polls-declare-trump-debate-winner-despite-media-consensus-for-clinton.html), “Online votes declare Trump debate winner, despite media consensus for Clinton.” Trying to sound authoritative, their piece cited the most pro-Trump sources imaginable, including the media group run by Trump’s campaign chair. “The Drudge Report online vote had 80 percent of respondents giving the victory to Trump, and a Time.com survey had the Republican nominee leading Clinton by 4 percentage points—52 percent to 48 percent—after more than 1,300,000 votes were cast. CNBC and Breitbart votes also had Trump winning the event, at New York’s Hofstra University. A Fox News online vote had Trump winning with 50 percent of respondents, Clinton at 35 percent and the other 15 percent declaring no one won.”

That last “statistic” is pretty amazing. A third of Fox viewers, who live in that right-wing gated community, agreed she won. Fox then inserted this disclaimer in its report. “The online surveys are not scientific and, in many cases, supporters of either candidate can cast multiple ballots.”

Trump is the candidate warning about voter fraud, after all. But even this propagandizing was too much for the conservative Weekly Standard, which posted a piece (http://www.weeklystandard.com/which-post-debate-polls-to-trust-and-which-to-disregard/article/2004568#.V-q5dPiFYDs.twitter) telling its audience not to trust Drudge and Fox on this one: The Standard’s Jay Cost wrote, “After the debate, Donald Trump and his campaign have claimed that the Republican nominee won—according to all the polls. One new press release from Trump’s campaign says he ‘leads post-debate surveys.’ It’s not true. CNN and YouGov gave the win to Hillary Clinton, while the Drudge Report poll, among several others, had Trump winning handily. Which of these to trust? The Drudge Report poll is not a scientific poll, and therefore its results do not tell us anything about what America as a whole thought. The same is true of other polls like those conducted by Time, CNBC, and the Washington Times. These polls are of no value for gauging public opinion.”

6. The real evidence suggests Clinton will get a bounce.

In contrast to the Trump bubble, the early evidence suggests that Clinton will benefit from the debate. The infinitely more reputable pollster, Nate Silver, at fivethirtyeight.com said (http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/clinton-won-the-debate-which-means-shes-likely-to-gain-in-the-polls/)that Clinton got the third biggest post-debate bounce on record, according to a reputable CNN poll.

“Start with a CNN poll of debate-watchers, which showed that 62 percent of voters thought Clinton won the debate compared to 27 percent for Trump—a 35-point margin. That’s the third-widest margin ever in a CNN or Gallup post-debate poll, which date back to 1984,” Silver said. This trend was likely to be seen in more follow-up polls in coming days, he added.

“This time, pundits and pollsters seem to agree on the Clinton win… the correlation between the instant-reaction polls and the eventual effect on horse-race polls has actually grown stronger in recent election cycles, perhaps because the conventional wisdom formulates itself more quickly.”

Silver also tweeted that Google searches about donating to Clinton’s campaign picked up during the debate and outpaced Trump.

“Search terms for donating to Clinton spiked somewhat higher than those for Trump during the debate,” he tweeted (https://twitter.com/NateSilver538/status/780867803586985984). “About 2x as many searches for ‘donate hillary clinton’ than ‘donate donald trump’ over past 24 hours, for instance,” hetweeted (https://twitter.com/NateSilver538/status/780868780310274048) later in the day.

http://www.nationalmemo.com/biggest-choke-trump-political-life/

Trash! :lol

Trash supporters! :lol

America is still fucked and unfuckable.

[boutons_deux]

Thrice-married adulterer Trump ready to attack Hillary Clinton over Bill's past infidelities (http://www.dailykos.com/stories/2016/9/28/1575396/-Thrice-married-adulterer-Trump-ready-to-attack-Hillary-Clinton-over-Bill-s-past-infidelities)

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.”

it looks like Trump and his team are deciding to go full-on and blatant with that line of attack after all.

Past adulterer Rudy Giuliani thinks past adulterer Trump should definitely go for it (http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/28/us/politics/hillary-clinton-donald-trump-debate.html?_r=0).

Trump deputy campaign manager David Bossie, of Citizens United fame, is pushing the attack (http://www.politico.com/story/2016/09/clinton-adultery-enabler-trump-campaign-228828),

Republican operatives wincing in the knowledge that this is nothing new (http://www.politico.com/story/2016/09/donald-trump-strategy-228811#ixzz4LVepGIgN), it has not worked in the past as an attack on Hillary Clinton—and in this case, it plays into Clinton’s message that Trump is a misogynist creep:


If the thrice-married Trump hits Hillary Clinton for her husband's infidelity, he's effectively taking her bait again.

"He's walking right into her trap," Packer said. "She's making the case that he bullies, degrades and humiliated women.

And this will be Exhibit A."


it’s going to be an ugly thing to watch. It’s even uglier when you consider it’s coming from a major party presidential nominee.


http://www.dailykos.com/story/2016/09/28/1575396/-Thrice-married-adulterer-Trump-ready-to-attack-Hillary-Clinton-over-Bill-s-past-infidelities?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+dailykos%2Findex+%28Daily+Kos %29

Trash is SO FUCKED! :lol

[spurraider21]

Seriously, I had to wonder if he was coked up.

A rich white business guy who came of age in the 1980s. Not too far of a stretch.
If Hillary had the sniffles and right wingers on this board attacked her health, would you have thought it was fair

[FromWayDowntown]

I'm not sure if you're serious or not, but there is a lot of truth to that imo.

That's ridiculous.

The "I didn't mean what I actually said" standard for evaluating truthfulness in Presidential elections has applied, literally, to nobody other than Trump.

[boutons_deux]

Trump committed a huge mistake this week, and Democrats will troll him mercilessly on it

the most glaring missteps Donald Trump committed during the debate on Monday night:

When confronted over whether he pays nothing in federal taxes, he not only didn’t deny it — he seemed to openly boast about it.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2016/09/28/trump-committed-a-huge-mistake-this-week-and-dems-will-troll-him-mercilessly-on-it/?utm_term=.46f69120253d&wpisrc=nl_most-draw7&wpmm=1

But but but ... not paying taxes is 100% establishment 1% / VRWC / Repug ideology and strategy to fuck up govt.

The Old Lesbian from Confederate South Carolina even said "It's Americans' patriotic duty not to pay taxes"

[tlongII]

That's ridiculous.

The "I didn't mean what I actually said" standard for evaluating truthfulness in Presidential elections has applied, literally, to nobody other than Trump.

It is hardly ridiculous for someone that is not a politician.

[velik_m]

Hey ducks, can you explain Trump's statement from the debate on cyber security:

I mean Trump doesn't know what he's talking about half the time and probably doesn't even care as long as it sounds good, but what exactly is wrong with this statement: "The security aspect of cyber is very, very tough. And maybe it's hardly doable."?

[FromWayDowntown]

It is hardly ridiculous for someone that is not a politician.

He's a politician now, and his words -- even those he said a long time ago -- have meaning because that's the choice he made.

[tlongII]

He's a politician now, and his words -- even those he said a long time ago -- have meaning because that's the choice he made.

They obviously have meaning to you. Not as much to me. The Clintons have been politicians their entire careers. Trump just since 2015.

[HarlemHeat37]

I mean Trump doesn't know what he's talking about half the time and probably doesn't even care as long as it sounds good, but what exactly is wrong with this statement: "The security aspect of cyber is very, very tough. And maybe it's hardly doable."?

When you include the part about his son, it sounds like incoherent gibberish, tbh:lol

He should have diverted that question back to Hillary's server, but at that point, he was mentally finished..

[boutons_deux]

Trump just since 2015.

Trash is shitty politician, a shitty human, and a shitty businessman. But he's a fantastic liar, racist, bigot, misogynist, xenophobe, con man, inflamer of losers.

[FromWayDowntown]

They obviously have meaning to you. Not as much to me. The Clintons have been politicians their entire careers. Trump just since 2015.

Cheers. Actually, Trump's words have no meaning to me, because there's virtually nothing that would convince me to vote for him. Had the Republicans run a serious candidate in this election, I might very well have voted for that person. But Trump isn't a serious candidate (though he may win) and I can't demean myself enough to waste a vote for that office on someone who's essentially a clown.

Oh, and Hillary was a politician when her husband was President? Was Laura Bush a politician between 2000 and 2008? Just curious.

[TheGreatYacht]

Oh no ducks...

Reddit 4chan bombard online polls to declare trump the winner

http://www.dailydot.com/layer8/trump-clinton-debate-online-polls-4chan-the-donald/
This. :lol

He has nerds on 4chan, Reddit, twitter groups, forums etc sharing online polls so they can bot them in favor of Trump. It's actually kind of pathetic

780654276053983232