Regardless, History is being made.

[Pants II]

I'm not gonna lie I completely lost my **** when the debate ended.

But I'm a strong supporter and my opinion does not matter one iota. Same with mclem on the other side.

What matters is the pull towards the never Trumpers and undecideds. That's what the debate was all about last night.

So I'm resigned to trust in Bannon and Conway. Conway might be the smartest pundit the Republicans have had in my lifetime.

[Rudeboyelvis]

Originally Posted by Pants II

I'm not gonna lie I completely lost my **** when the debate ended.

But I'm a strong supporter and my opinion does not matter one iota. Same with mclem on the other side.

What matters is the pull towards the never Trumpers and undecideds. That's what the debate was all about last night.

So I'm resigned to trust in Bannon and Conway. Conway might be the smartest pundit the Republicans have had in my lifetime.

I felt he held his own as well as could be expected, but when you have a moderator digging up 43 year old antitrust cases rather than talking about the Clinton Foundation = State Dept favors, emails, DNC scandal, etc. you knew it was a 2 on 1 attack with him doing his level best to defend himself.

This doesn't move the needle except draw a handful of right-leaning Indies with shrinking tolerances for the left wing media conglomerate biases over to Trump, and made the lefties feel like they can breathe for a minute. But that breath may well be short lived. The first post-debate poll from Real Clear Politics shows Trump with a 3 point lead nationally:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/latest_polls/

[Pants II]

This right here is a pivot like no other.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D6jdzwrCgEI

Bozell is also on the march.

Don't forget Wikileaks.

Don't forget your popcorn.

[Pants II]

Rock bottom...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BshqMopwv2E

I still laughed though.

[Rudeboyelvis]

Originally Posted by Pants II

Rock bottom...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BshqMopwv2E

I still laughed though.

Complete mental case. It's like he has a make believe oval office in his house and he's the president of it. Holy sh1t that's funny.

[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.

[Pants II]

The fat shaming pc horses.hit failed miserably for the Clinton campaign with the terrorist fat chick who had a kid with a drug lord.

[Rudeboyelvis]

Originally Posted by Pants II

The fat shaming pc horses.hit failed miserably for the Clinton campaign with the terrorist fat chick who had a kid with a drug lord.

I'm sure its the last we hear of it. He sure as hell won't bring it up, and if she brings it up again, he's going to bury her.

[Rudeboyelvis]

Originally Posted by Pants II

The fat shaming pc horses.hit failed miserably for the Clinton campaign with the terrorist fat chick who had a kid with a drug lord.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...Venezuela.html

So, aside from being a fat pig, she's also a whore that traveled to the US to birth her drug lord boyfriend's anchor baby.

Did the Clinton campaign even consider having interpreters vet this chick?

[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.

[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.

[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.