Regardless, History is being made.

[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?

[pointman]

Originally Posted by kp319

There was a worse Mayor than DeBlasio?

The word "second" in that sentence is used in the context of timing, it was one of the first acts DeBlasio took when he got into office.

Clearly, the Comrade is the worst mayor NYC has ever seen and will likely be revealed as, or more, corrupt than Boss Tweed.