Regardless, History is being made.

[CheekyBird]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

Lester Holt was a joke. He was ok for the first part of the debate. But his bias came out for the second half. He was much tougher on Trump than Clinton. In addition, his fact-checking was wrong. He totally mischaracterized what the court ruled with regard to Stop and Frisk. There is nothing unconstitutional about Stop and Frisk. It was done for over 10 years in New York. It was legal and it was very effective. Many years later, one liberal judge ruled that it was being applied improperly and that the police were frisking people without probable cause. First of all, that was only one judge's opinion. Second, that judge did not claim that Stop and Frisk in itself is unconstitutional. She only ruled that the way it was being applied at that point in time was unconstitutional. Lester Holt needs to get his facts straight. So does Hillary Clinton. Under Giuliani, Stop and Frisk was a huge success and the courts had no issue with it.

I don't mind a moderator doing some fact-checking, as long as he fact-checks both candidates and as long as he knows what he's talking about. Holt did not know what he was talking about with regard to most of the things he tried to fact-check. The Stop and Frisk was one example. His claim that Trump supported the Iraq War was another example. Trump did one interview with Howard Sterne where he gave luke-warm support to the Iraq War. That is hardly proof that he supported the war. Holt acted like there was indisputable evidence that Trump was in favor of the Iraq War. Trump claims he told multiple people (including Sean Hannity) that he was against the war. That could be a lie. We will never know for sure. But I certainly don't think there is indisputable evidence that he favored the war. Holt should have simply said that there was one interview with Howard Sterne where Trump gave luke-warm support to the Iraq War.

And why in the world is Holt bringing up the birther issue? Nobody cares about that. In addition, most people including Holt don't even know that there is evidence that supports the birther claims. I'm not saying Obama was born in Kenya. I have no idea where he was born. But there is certainly reason to suspect he was born in Kenya. Obama's own literary agent said he was born in Kenya. That was written by his literary agent in his bio in 1991. If it was a mistake, how come nobody ever corrected it, not even 10 years later? In addition, Obama's grandmother said he was born in Kenya and that she was there when he was born. In addition, Obama first claimed he was born in one hospital in Hawaii, then later claimed it was a different hospital. There is certainly enough evidence there to make a reasonable person wonder. Despite all that, I don't think anyone really cares at this point. For Holt to be wasting time on this was unconscionable.

With regard to who won the debate. I thought Trump won the first half of the debate. I thought Hillary won the second half and probably won the debate overall, if you were scoring it on points. But most of her points were won on irrelevant issues, such as whether Trump discriminated against tenants back in the 1970s. When the candidates went point, counter-point on a few of these irrelevant issues, I thought Clinton outscored Trump on many of these. I don't know how this will translate to the polls. Clinton might get a slight bounce, but I don't think it's a sure thing. It's possible that many voters will see that Trump scored points on many key issues. In addition, expectations were low for Trump going into the debate. Polls showed that most people expected Hillary to win the debate. Since expectation for Trump were low, he may have outperformed expectations. If that is the case, he may not lose any ground as a result of this debate. We will see what the polls show over the next few days.

If Trump had prepared he would have mitigated most of these issues. But he didn't. Lord knows he interrupted over 51 times. He could have used those interruptions to "set the record straight." But he didn't. Why? Because he didn't prepare, thinks he knows it all when he actually knows very little. He thought he could just show up, use his stump speech and get away with it.

That being said, Lester Holt was, indeed, awful. But that didn't affect Hillary because, (gasp!) she prepared! (And she knows what she's talking about).

[Pants II]

It's nearly impossible to prepare against a sociopath and her token moderately retarded white knight masquerading as a moderator.

Most people tuned out when MoLester was more concerned about taxes and birtherism. People like him were planked on the ships hundreds of years ago for sheer idiocy.

[CheekyBird]

Originally Posted by Pants II

It's nearly impossible to prepare against a sociopath and her token moderately retarded white knight masquerading as a moderator.

Most people tuned out when MoLester was more concerned about taxes and birtherism. People like him were planked on the ships hundreds of years ago for sheer idiocy.

Name calling "Little Marco." "Killary." "Lying Ted." "Crooked Hillary." "Low Engergy Jeb." "Pocahontas."

Didn't seem to help him in a one-on-one debate, did it?

[Pants II]

Originally Posted by CheekyBird

Name calling "Little Marco." "Killary." "Lying Ted." "Crooked Hillary." "Low Engergy Jeb." "Pocahontas."

Didn't seem to help him in a one-on-one debate, did it?

Neither did Obama telling the British people they're going to the back of the queue.

No one is buying the holier than thou/smarter than thou horses.hit you degenerate scum promote 24/7.

It's over, slave. Your globalist utopia is ending in total ruin no matter who wins.

[CheekyBird]

Originally Posted by Pants II

Neither did Obama telling the British people they're going to the back of the queue.

No one is buying the holier than thou/smarter than thou horses.hit you degenerate scum promote 24/7.

It's over, slave. Your globalist utopia is ending in total ruin no matter who wins.

Your country's changing and there's nothing you can do about it. Not all the name calling, whinging, insulting, gnashing of teeth, banging of heads, or Pepe the frogs....

[Pants II]

Originally Posted by CheekyBird

Your country's changing and there's nothing you can do about it. Not all the name calling, whinging, insulting, gnashing of teeth, banging of heads, or Pepe the frogs....

Oy gevalt!

[OldDog]

Originally Posted by CheekyBird

Your country's changing and there's nothing you can do about it.

Washington Mall Terrorist Cetin Wasn’t U.S. Citizen, Still Voted Three Times
http://www.jammiewf.com/2016/washing...d-three-times/

Indeed.

[Rudeboyelvis]

Originally Posted by CheekyBird

If Trump had prepared he would have mitigated most of these issues. But he didn't. Lord knows he interrupted over 51 times. He could have used those interruptions to "set the record straight." But he didn't. Why? Because he didn't prepare, thinks he knows it all when he actually knows very little. He thought he could just show up, use his stump speech and get away with it.

That being said, Lester Holt was, indeed, awful. But that didn't affect Hillary because, (gasp!) she prepared! (And she knows what she's talking about).

Post-debate election polling:



Love it when libs smugly think they know WTF is happening right before their eyes.

[Rudeboyelvis]

Paul Joseph Watson tweet - So HRC's brand new poster child is a porn star accused of driving a murder getaway vehicle and threatening to kill a judge.

LOL


20 years ago Trump called a fat woman fat; 20 years ago Hillary was threatening her husband's rape victims.

Which one is the media obsessed with?

[Rudeboyelvis]

Originally Posted by Rudeboyelvis

20 years ago Trump called a fat woman fat; 20 years ago Hillary was threatening her husband's rape victims.

Which one is the media obsessed with?

Juanita Broaddrick RIPS Chelsea Clinton’s statement on her father’s affairs

http://twitchy.com/gregp-3534/2016/0...thers-affairs/

[Pants II]

Never Forget

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iDMktUYvC7k

[knickslions2]

All I know is I've never seen two more unqualified people in my life in position to run this Country. I can't believe someone else hasn't stepped up to challenge these yahoos. I have a few Rhesus monkeys on site that would be more qualified.

[Pants II]

They're both better than the current one in office. You can't name a thing he has done to benefit the country. Not one.

Every financial aspect that can be deemed positive is because a President has never had the Fed cover for them like this one.

He's an absolute imbecile and will go down as the worst President in history amongst true intellectuals who aren't part of the white genocide movement.

[CheekyBird]

Originally Posted by Rudeboyelvis

Post-debate election polling:



Love it when libs smugly think they know WTF is happening right before their eyes.

Who do you think will win?

We ask voters who they expect to see win, regardless of which candidate they support. Over the years, asking voters their expectation about which candidate will win often has proved to predict elections more reliably than asking how they plan to vote. That’s particularly true when the election is still many weeks away.

Hillary Clinton 53.6% Donald Trump 41.2% Area of uncertainty* Based on 2,565 respondents As of Sep. 11, 2016

Source: http://graphics.latimes.com/usc-pres...oll-dashboard/

[Pants II]

Trump had over 25,000 people at the Melbourne, Fl rally.

They had to turn away 12,000 people. This amount of people is the total Hillary has had for all her rallies since August 1st.

People who believe polls conducted by the mainstream media are the type of people who can be persuaded to suck a fart for equal rights.

[Rudeboyelvis]

Originally Posted by CheekyBird

Hillary Clinton 53.6% Donald Trump 41.2% Area of uncertainty* Based on 2,565 respondents As of Sep. 11, 2016

Source: http://graphics.latimes.com/usc-pres...oll-dashboard/

Was this ancient history poll you're citing taken before or after she "got overheated" in 70 degree weather and fell unconscious, reportedly soiling herself?

Never Forget

[Pants II]

https://youtu.be/3XSuG5aCFGs

[pointman]

Originally Posted by CheekyBird

If Trump had prepared he would have mitigated most of these issues. But he didn't. Lord knows he interrupted over 51 times. He could have used those interruptions to "set the record straight." But he didn't. Why? Because he didn't prepare, thinks he knows it all when he actually knows very little. He thought he could just show up, use his stump speech and get away with it.

That being said, Lester Holt was, indeed, awful. But that didn't affect Hillary because, (gasp!) she prepared! (And she knows what she's talking about).

Except that Trump and RBE are 100% right on the Stop & Frisk issue. Stop & Frisk is 100% Constitutional and has been since the United States Supreme Court declared it Constitutional in Terry v. Ohio in 1968.

As Trump correctly stated in "interrupting" Holt, the United States District Court Judge who declared it Unconstitutional in the NYC case, Shira Scheindlin is a liberal shill who was removed from the case by the United States Second Circuit Court of Appeals for being biased against the police. That is virtually unprecedented and only occurs when the bias is incredibly obvious.

NYC appealed the absurd ruling declaring the policy Unconstitutional under Guiliani but the second the worst mayor in NYC's history took office, Comrade Bill Wilhelm, er, DeBlasio, he voluntarily withdrew the appeal solely for political reasons. Regardless, the most basic tenant of law is that the Supreme Court of the United States is the law of the land and no ruling by a District Court Judge can overrule a decision, therefore, Terry v. Ohio continues to be the law of the United States and Stop & Frisk is Constitutional.

Holt proved why a moderator has no role in attempting to fact check as he, much like Candy Crowley, was wrong when he attempted to correct Trump who was factually correct. Why would Trump try to set the record straight when the moderator made it clear he had no knowledge of the true facts and was going to make Trump look like his claim was false when it was true?

Why didn't Holt press Hillary Clinton on the fact that she flat out lied to the American public numerous times with regard to her email? What about her conflict of interest with the Clinton Foundation while she was Secretary of State? Her unsecured server exposing undercover operatives? Bengazi? I guess he thought it was more important to press Trump on his opinion that Clinton does not look Presidential which only an idiot like you would think is important.

[CheekyBird]

Originally Posted by pointman

Except that Trump and RBE are 100% right on the Stop & Frisk issue. Stop & Frisk is 100% Constitutional and has been since the United States Supreme Court declared it Constitutional in Terry v. Ohio in 1968.

As Trump correctly stated in "interrupting" Holt, the United States District Court Judge who declared it Unconstitutional in the NYC case, Shira Scheindlin is a liberal shill who was removed from the case by the United States Second Circuit Court of Appeals for being biased against the police. That is virtually unprecedented and only occurs when the bias is incredibly obvious.

NYC appealed the absurd ruling declaring the policy Unconstitutional under Guiliani but the second the worst mayor in NYC's history took office, Comrade Bill Wilhelm, er, DeBlasio, he voluntarily withdrew the appeal solely for political reasons. Regardless, the most basic tenant of law is that the Supreme Court of the United States is the law of the land and no ruling by a District Court Judge can overrule a decision, therefore, Terry v. Ohio continues to be the law of the United States and Stop & Frisk is Constitutional.

Holt proved why a moderator has no role in attempting to fact check as he, much like Candy Crowley, was wrong when he attempted to correct Trump who was factually correct. Why would Trump try to set the record straight when the moderator made it clear he had no knowledge of the true facts and was going to make Trump look like his claim was false when it was true?

Why didn't Holt press Hillary Clinton on the fact that she flat out lied to the American public numerous times with regard to her email? What about her conflict of interest with the Clinton Foundation while she was Secretary of State? Her unsecured server exposing undercover operatives? Bengazi? I guess he thought it was more important to press Trump on his opinion that Clinton does not look Presidential which only an idiot like you would think is important.

Simple answer: As Kellyanne Conway said, it is not up to the moderator to fact check; candidates should fact check one another.

But alas, Trump does not have intellectual wherewithal to articulate Stop & Frisk as you did above. All he could do was utter, "that's not true."

Lester Holt was NOT going to do his work for him. I find it really RICH that Trump supporters are blaming Lester but thought Hillary supporters were being cry babies when we thought Lauer tossed softballs at Trump.

[kp319]

Originally Posted by pointman

Except that Trump and RBE are 100% right on the Stop & Frisk issue. Stop & Frisk is 100% Constitutional and has been since the United States Supreme Court declared it Constitutional in Terry v. Ohio in 1968.

As Trump correctly stated in "interrupting" Holt, the United States District Court Judge who declared it Unconstitutional in the NYC case, Shira Scheindlin is a liberal shill who was removed from the case by the United States Second Circuit Court of Appeals for being biased against the police. That is virtually unprecedented and only occurs when the bias is incredibly obvious.

NYC appealed the absurd ruling declaring the policy Unconstitutional under Guiliani but the second the worst mayor in NYC's history took office, Comrade Bill Wilhelm, er, DeBlasio, he voluntarily withdrew the appeal solely for political reasons. Regardless, the most basic tenant of law is that the Supreme Court of the United States is the law of the land and no ruling by a District Court Judge can overrule a decision, therefore, Terry v. Ohio continues to be the law of the United States and Stop & Frisk is Constitutional.

Holt proved why a moderator has no role in attempting to fact check as he, much like Candy Crowley, was wrong when he attempted to correct Trump who was factually correct. Why would Trump try to set the record straight when the moderator made it clear he had no knowledge of the true facts and was going to make Trump look like his claim was false when it was true?

Why didn't Holt press Hillary Clinton on the fact that she flat out lied to the American public numerous times with regard to her email? What about her conflict of interest with the Clinton Foundation while she was Secretary of State? Her unsecured server exposing undercover operatives? Bengazi? I guess he thought it was more important to press Trump on his opinion that Clinton does not look Presidential which only an idiot like you would think is important.

There was a worse Mayor than DeBlasio?