Who won the debate?

[candycorn]

I think Trump did great when he responded about Russia. I agree with him, wouldn't it be better to get along with Russia and work with them to get rid of the terrorist factions?
Hillary wants to go after Russia to protect the terrorist factions.
Which policy would be better for the United States in the long run?

We should trust the KGB spymaster in a partnership.
The next time someone breaks into your house, convince him that you and he should team up and go after other criminals…see how comfortable you are in that alliance.

I must have slept through that part where Russia invaded the United States.
Can you please supply a link so those that are equally as ignorant of this historic action can become aware of the dangers that await us?

As soon as you post a link stating that Russia invaded the United States, I’ll be happy to.

You insinuated in the first post I quoted from YOU.
You said we should not trust Russia because we wouldn't trust someone that broke into our house.
So, please show a link that indicates Russia invaded us or admit that you have nothing but tired socialist talking points without any clue at all what you are actually saying.

Actually, the comparison was getting into an alliance with a devious actor who doesn’t have your best interest at heart; and never has—and has made that clear from the day he took over. Do try to keep up.

 

[Maryland Patriot]

We’ve had televised debates since 1960. The only time they ever took on an aura of Jerry Springer has been when Trump was on the stage; first in the primaries and now in the General Election. Only a fool would reward his antics and say that he “won” anything.

and yet, look how popular (not populous) Jerry Springer was.

So, popularity should be the only barometer? Hope Clooney runs in 2024 then.

you are very confused aren't you.
Do you now or have you ever been prescribed any drugs in the antipsychotic medication class?
maybe Abilify or Risperdal or Zyprexa? how about Seroquel
any of those in your daily lineup of medications? if not, I suspect you are not seeing the right medical health professional.

 

[Maryland Patriot]

I think Trump did great when he responded about Russia. I agree with him, wouldn't it be better to get along with Russia and work with them to get rid of the terrorist factions?
Hillary wants to go after Russia to protect the terrorist factions.
Which policy would be better for the United States in the long run?

We should trust the KGB spymaster in a partnership.
The next time someone breaks into your house, convince him that you and he should team up and go after other criminals…see how comfortable you are in that alliance.

I must have slept through that part where Russia invaded the United States.
Can you please supply a link so those that are equally as ignorant of this historic action can become aware of the dangers that await us?

As soon as you post a link stating that Russia invaded the United States, I’ll be happy to.

You insinuated in the first post I quoted from YOU.
You said we should not trust Russia because we wouldn't trust someone that broke into our house.
So, please show a link that indicates Russia invaded us or admit that you have nothing but tired socialist talking points without any clue at all what you are actually saying.

Actually, the comparison was getting into an alliance with a devious actor who doesn’t have your best interest at heart; and never has—and has made that clear from the day he took over. Do try to keep up.

Oh, you mean, someone like Hillary that has never had the best interest of the citizens at heart. She will only say what she needs to say to place herself in a position to create more wealth for herself while at the same time letting the minorities rot in their inner city shit holes.

 

[candycorn]

We’ve had televised debates since 1960. The only time they ever took on an aura of Jerry Springer has been when Trump was on the stage; first in the primaries and now in the General Election. Only a fool would reward his antics and say that he “won” anything.

and yet, look how popular (not populous) Jerry Springer was.

So, popularity should be the only barometer? Hope Clooney runs in 2024 then.

you are very confused aren't you.
Do you now or have you ever been prescribed any drugs in the antipsychotic medication class?
maybe Abilify or Risperdal or Zyprexa? how about Seroquel
any of those in your daily lineup of medications? if not, I suspect you are not seeing the right medical health professional.

Gee, you seem to know a lot about them. I’m guessing you are hooked on them yourself or get them out of some crazy friend’s cabinet when they aren’t looking. I doubt you could afford them on your own since you’re obviously unemployed, poor, and a crack baby. But hey, with HRC in office, hope is on the way for the most useless people in our society so there may be hope for you yet.

 

[PK1]

I think Trump did great when he responded about Russia. I agree with him, wouldn't it be better to get along with Russia and work with them to get rid of the terrorist factions?
Hillary wants to go after Russia to protect the terrorist factions.
Which policy would be better for the United States in the long run?

You are naive about Putin's Russia and his intentions, just like Trump who does not care if Russia controls Assad's Syria regime and destroys innocent families for political gain, while pretending to primarily fight ISIS.

well by God, lets start WW3 over a few Syrians.

You continue to show your naivety in world affairs. What WW3? You are making a mountain out of a mole hill that you don't give a shit about, because you only care about yourself.
The USA represents democracy and human rights that should be a model for the rest of the world.
Trump seems to care only about money (& pussy), as you probably do.

 

[Camp]

Judging the winner or loser of a debate so soon after the debate is a mostly subjective endeavor. The objective results will depend on legitimate polls that allow for a day or more of discussion and consideration by the public. The answer will also depend on the " definition" one uses of "winning" or "losing".

winning or losing simply indicates which policy those that take place in the poll agree with.
And, polls can be made to say whatever one wants them to say. Its why I don't take too much interest in polls.

I don't think the policies have much to do with it. Most folks have already decided on their candidate by the time the debates occur. The candidates are trying to influence a small minority of undecided voters and fence sitters. Those folks pretty much know the positions of the candidates and are focusing on which candidate appears to be "Presidential", how they handle themselves under pressure and how well they can "think on their feet". It takes a big issue and incident to divert those kinds of voters. That is why surprises" and unpredicted scandals or situations have so much impact.
The current competing scandals are hopelessly unequal. Trump is using old scandals that simply do not garner much attention or serious consideration by anyone but the already decided voters who already support him. Clinton is using fresh scandals that draw curiosity and interest. Parading out a bunch of old women with unproven allegations or at the very least, irrelevant allegations from a quarter of a century ago don't impress the voters so much. Trump, on the other hand, is standing by some pretty obnoxious behavior and making his comments made years ago relevant today because of his refusal to take responsibility for his screw up. The guy's ego will not allow him to show or give a genuine apology.

 

[candycorn]

We should trust the KGB spymaster in a partnership.
The next time someone breaks into your house, convince him that you and he should team up and go after other criminals…see how comfortable you are in that alliance.

I must have slept through that part where Russia invaded the United States.
Can you please supply a link so those that are equally as ignorant of this historic action can become aware of the dangers that await us?

As soon as you post a link stating that Russia invaded the United States, I’ll be happy to.

You insinuated in the first post I quoted from YOU.
You said we should not trust Russia because we wouldn't trust someone that broke into our house.
So, please show a link that indicates Russia invaded us or admit that you have nothing but tired socialist talking points without any clue at all what you are actually saying.

Actually, the comparison was getting into an alliance with a devious actor who doesn’t have your best interest at heart; and never has—and has made that clear from the day he took over. Do try to keep up.

Oh, you mean, someone like Hillary that has never had the best interest of the citizens at heart. She will only say what she needs to say to place herself in a position to create more wealth for herself while at the same time letting the minorities rot in their inner city shit holes.

Well, only a crack baby like yourself could read what I wrote and come away with that tripe….. I suggest you learn to read little boy.

 

[candycorn]

Judging the winner or loser of a debate so soon after the debate is a mostly subjective endeavor. The objective results will depend on legitimate polls that allow for a day or more of discussion and consideration by the public. The answer will also depend on the " definition" one uses of "winning" or "losing".

winning or losing simply indicates which policy those that take place in the poll agree with.
And, polls can be made to say whatever one wants them to say. Its why I don't take too much interest in polls.

I don't think the policies have much to do with it. Most folks have already decided on their candidate by the time the debates occur. The candidates are trying to influence a small minority of undecided voters and fence sitters. Those folks pretty much know the positions of the candidates and are focusing on which candidate appears to be "Presidential", how they handle themselves under pressure and how well they can "think on their feet". It takes a big issue and incident to divert those kinds of voters. That is why surprises" and unpredicted scandals or situations have so much impact.
The current competing scandals are hopelessly unequal. Trump is using old scandals that simply do not garner much attention or serious consideration by anyone but the already decided voters who already support him. Clinton is using fresh scandals that draw curiosity and interest. Parading out a bunch of old women with unproven allegations or at the very least, irrelevant allegations from a quarter of a century ago don't impress the voters so much. Trump, on the other hand, is standing by some pretty obnoxious behavior and making his comments made years ago relevant today because of his refusal to take responsibility for his screw up. The guy's ego will not allow him to show or give a genuine apology.

I’m pretty sure Trump released the video himself to get attention away from his not paying federal income taxes for 20 years.

 

[Maryland Patriot]

I must have slept through that part where Russia invaded the United States.
Can you please supply a link so those that are equally as ignorant of this historic action can become aware of the dangers that await us?

As soon as you post a link stating that Russia invaded the United States, I’ll be happy to.

You insinuated in the first post I quoted from YOU.
You said we should not trust Russia because we wouldn't trust someone that broke into our house.
So, please show a link that indicates Russia invaded us or admit that you have nothing but tired socialist talking points without any clue at all what you are actually saying.

Actually, the comparison was getting into an alliance with a devious actor who doesn’t have your best interest at heart; and never has—and has made that clear from the day he took over. Do try to keep up.

Oh, you mean, someone like Hillary that has never had the best interest of the citizens at heart. She will only say what she needs to say to place herself in a position to create more wealth for herself while at the same time letting the minorities rot in their inner city shit holes.

Well, only a crack baby like yourself could read what I wrote and come away with that tripe….. I suggest you learn to read little boy.

You should really check into some of the medications I mentioned, take them for a few weeks or until you have at least a .7 blood reading with them. Then come back and read what you have been writing.
I think it will be eye opening for you.

 

[PK1]

Trump supports Putin because he wants to fight ISiS? And he does not care about Putin's awful record on human rights? Bigots think alike!

"Since September 19, 2016, Russian and Syrian forces have bombarded opposition-controlled parts of Aleppo. The attacks included the use of barrel bombs, cluster munitions, and incendiary weapons, and damaged or partially destroyed at least five hospitals in six separate attacks, Human Rights Watch research shows. According to the UN, the offensive has killed about 320 civilians, including over 100 children.
“Using massive firepower in residential areas where thousands of civilians are trapped is reckless and could amount to a war crime,” said Louis Charbonneau, UN director at Human Rights Watch. “The Security Council should immediately adopt a resolution demanding an end to the slaughter. And Russia, itself involved in the bombing, should refrain from using its veto or risk further sullying its record as a permanent member of the council.”

 

[Maryland Patriot]

Judging the winner or loser of a debate so soon after the debate is a mostly subjective endeavor. The objective results will depend on legitimate polls that allow for a day or more of discussion and consideration by the public. The answer will also depend on the " definition" one uses of "winning" or "losing".

winning or losing simply indicates which policy those that take place in the poll agree with.
And, polls can be made to say whatever one wants them to say. Its why I don't take too much interest in polls.

I don't think the policies have much to do with it. Most folks have already decided on their candidate by the time the debates occur. The candidates are trying to influence a small minority of undecided voters and fence sitters. Those folks pretty much know the positions of the candidates and are focusing on which candidate appears to be "Presidential", how they handle themselves under pressure and how well they can "think on their feet". It takes a big issue and incident to divert those kinds of voters. That is why surprises" and unpredicted scandals or situations have so much impact.
The current competing scandals are hopelessly unequal. Trump is using old scandals that simply do not garner much attention or serious consideration by anyone but the already decided voters who already support him. Clinton is using fresh scandals that draw curiosity and interest. Parading out a bunch of old women with unproven allegations or at the very least, irrelevant allegations from a quarter of a century ago don't impress the voters so much. Trump, on the other hand, is standing by some pretty obnoxious behavior and making his comments made years ago relevant today because of his refusal to take responsibility for his screw up. The guy's ego will not allow him to show or give a genuine apology.

I’m pretty sure Trump released the video himself to get attention away from his not paying federal income taxes for 20 years.

So its still a problem that he didn't pay or paid minimal taxes by using the deductions that the federal government (Hillary) set up? those same deductions that Hillary and Bill use to limit their exposure to tax?
Do you think Trump donated his old underwear and tried to write off the full cost of replacements?

 

[ChrisL]

We should trust the KGB spymaster in a partnership.
The next time someone breaks into your house, convince him that you and he should team up and go after other criminals…see how comfortable you are in that alliance.

I must have slept through that part where Russia invaded the United States.
Can you please supply a link so those that are equally as ignorant of this historic action can become aware of the dangers that await us?

As soon as you post a link stating that Russia invaded the United States, I’ll be happy to.

You insinuated in the first post I quoted from YOU.
You said we should not trust Russia because we wouldn't trust someone that broke into our house.
So, please show a link that indicates Russia invaded us or admit that you have nothing but tired socialist talking points without any clue at all what you are actually saying.

Actually, the comparison was getting into an alliance with a devious actor who doesn’t have your best interest at heart; and never has—and has made that clear from the day he took over. Do try to keep up.

Oh, you mean, someone like Hillary that has never had the best interest of the citizens at heart. She will only say what she needs to say to place herself in a position to create more wealth for herself while at the same time letting the minorities rot in their inner city shit holes.

Exactly. She is an evil old hag who will say ANYTHING.

 

[PK1]

 

[Camp]

Judging the winner or loser of a debate so soon after the debate is a mostly subjective endeavor. The objective results will depend on legitimate polls that allow for a day or more of discussion and consideration by the public. The answer will also depend on the " definition" one uses of "winning" or "losing".

winning or losing simply indicates which policy those that take place in the poll agree with.
And, polls can be made to say whatever one wants them to say. Its why I don't take too much interest in polls.

I don't think the policies have much to do with it. Most folks have already decided on their candidate by the time the debates occur. The candidates are trying to influence a small minority of undecided voters and fence sitters. Those folks pretty much know the positions of the candidates and are focusing on which candidate appears to be "Presidential", how they handle themselves under pressure and how well they can "think on their feet". It takes a big issue and incident to divert those kinds of voters. That is why surprises" and unpredicted scandals or situations have so much impact.
The current competing scandals are hopelessly unequal. Trump is using old scandals that simply do not garner much attention or serious consideration by anyone but the already decided voters who already support him. Clinton is using fresh scandals that draw curiosity and interest. Parading out a bunch of old women with unproven allegations or at the very least, irrelevant allegations from a quarter of a century ago don't impress the voters so much. Trump, on the other hand, is standing by some pretty obnoxious behavior and making his comments made years ago relevant today because of his refusal to take responsibility for his screw up. The guy's ego will not allow him to show or give a genuine apology.

I’m pretty sure Trump released the video himself to get attention away from his not paying federal income taxes for 20 years.

So its still a problem that he didn't pay or paid minimal taxes by using the deductions that the federal government (Hillary) set up? those same deductions that Hillary and Bill use to limit their exposure to tax?
Do you think Trump donated his old underwear and tried to write off the full cost of replacements?

I think Trump's tax situation has a limited negative impact. Even those who oppose him can understand the reasons for him to use the very best tax attornies and lawyers to minimize the amount of taxes he pays. It is a weak scandal or alleged scandal. His reference's to assault on females and statements that his celebrity status (wealth) gives him special privileges to commit violations of both religious and legal offenses is the scandal that is beating him up. The "locker room men's talk" has not worked and will not work. That spin has been rejected by his fellow Republicans and especially women. He and his handlers should have realized that going into the debate.

 

[Norman]

Judging the winner or loser of a debate so soon after the debate is a mostly subjective endeavor. The objective results will depend on legitimate polls that allow for a day or more of discussion and consideration by the public. The answer will also depend on the " definition" one uses of "winning" or "losing".

winning or losing simply indicates which policy those that take place in the poll agree with.
And, polls can be made to say whatever one wants them to say. Its why I don't take too much interest in polls.

I don't think the policies have much to do with it. Most folks have already decided on their candidate by the time the debates occur. The candidates are trying to influence a small minority of undecided voters and fence sitters. Those folks pretty much know the positions of the candidates and are focusing on which candidate appears to be "Presidential", how they handle themselves under pressure and how well they can "think on their feet". It takes a big issue and incident to divert those kinds of voters. That is why surprises" and unpredicted scandals or situations have so much impact.
The current competing scandals are hopelessly unequal. Trump is using old scandals that simply do not garner much attention or serious consideration by anyone but the already decided voters who already support him. Clinton is using fresh scandals that draw curiosity and interest. Parading out a bunch of old women with unproven allegations or at the very least, irrelevant allegations from a quarter of a century ago don't impress the voters so much. Trump, on the other hand, is standing by some pretty obnoxious behavior and making his comments made years ago relevant today because of his refusal to take responsibility for his screw up. The guy's ego will not allow him to show or give a genuine apology.

I’m pretty sure Trump released the video himself to get attention away from his not paying federal income taxes for 20 years.

So its still a problem that he didn't pay or paid minimal taxes by using the deductions that the federal government (Hillary) set up? those same deductions that Hillary and Bill use to limit their exposure to tax?
Do you think Trump donated his old underwear and tried to write off the full cost of replacements?

I think Trump's tax situation has a limited negative impact. Even those who oppose him can understand the reasons for him to use the very best tax attornies and lawyers to minimize the amount of taxes he pays. It is a weak scandal or alleged scandal. His reference's to assault on females and statements that his celebrity status (wealth) gives him special privileges to commit violations of both religious and legal offenses is the scandal that is beating him up. The "locker room men's talk" has not worked and will not work. That spin has been rejected by his fellow Republicans and especially women. He and his handlers should have realized that going into the debate.

Yes and they did... Tump pointed out that Clinton is a child rapists defender and the violations that Bill has committed. Far worse than mere talk... The people were in the audience.

 

[WillowTree]

I'm not certain Clinton won other than letting Trump be Trump,

But trump LOST, to all those but his diehard supporters and failed to grab any new women as voters, which is what he needed to come out of this debate with, in order to increase supporters so he could win.... he won in stopping the bleeding of his lewd video talk with fellow Republicans, maybe....

Though IT shouldn't have stopped the bleeding, because he basically told us all, that he did force unwanted kisses and gropes on women....he did sexually harass women in the work place....he danced and hymned and hawed before he could give a 1 second response of no, i did not, and went on rambling about other things like Isis...he was completely incoherent...it SCREAMED, I AM LYING, I AM LYING, I AM LYING.... and complete insincerity to boot!!

Well actually if you are going to use the tape as evidence he clearly says on this tape "they let me do it because I am a star." It says nothing about force! Did you know

I'm not certain Clinton won other than letting Trump be Trump,

But trump LOST, to all those but his diehard supporters and failed to grab any new women as voters, which is what he needed to come out of this debate with, in order to increase supporters so he could win.... he won in stopping the bleeding of his lewd video talk with fellow Republicans, maybe....

Though IT shouldn't have stopped the bleeding, because he basically told us all, that he did force unwanted kisses and gropes on women....he did sexually harass women in the work place....he danced and hymned and hawed before he could give a 1 second response of no, i did not, and went on rambling about other things like Isis...he was completely incoherent...it SCREAMED, I AM LYING, I AM LYING, I AM LYING.... and complete insincerity to boot!!

boy! You are good. Did you know Bill Clinton was lying when he looked into that camera and said" I did not have sex with that woman, Monica Lewinsky."?

 

[Pogo]

Judging the winner or loser of a debate so soon after the debate is a mostly subjective endeavor. The objective results will depend on legitimate polls that allow for a day or more of discussion and consideration by the public. The answer will also depend on the " definition" one uses of "winning" or "losing".

winning or losing simply indicates which policy those that take place in the poll agree with.
And, polls can be made to say whatever one wants them to say. Its why I don't take too much interest in polls.

I don't think the policies have much to do with it. Most folks have already decided on their candidate by the time the debates occur. The candidates are trying to influence a small minority of undecided voters and fence sitters. Those folks pretty much know the positions of the candidates and are focusing on which candidate appears to be "Presidential", how they handle themselves under pressure and how well they can "think on their feet". It takes a big issue and incident to divert those kinds of voters. That is why surprises" and unpredicted scandals or situations have so much impact.
The current competing scandals are hopelessly unequal. Trump is using old scandals that simply do not garner much attention or serious consideration by anyone but the already decided voters who already support him. Clinton is using fresh scandals that draw curiosity and interest. Parading out a bunch of old women with unproven allegations or at the very least, irrelevant allegations from a quarter of a century ago don't impress the voters so much. Trump, on the other hand, is standing by some pretty obnoxious behavior and making his comments made years ago relevant today because of his refusal to take responsibility for his screw up. The guy's ego will not allow him to show or give a genuine apology.

I’m pretty sure Trump released the video himself to get attention away from his not paying federal income taxes for 20 years.

So its still a problem that he didn't pay or paid minimal taxes by using the deductions that the federal government (Hillary) set up? those same deductions that Hillary and Bill use to limit their exposure to tax?
Do you think Trump donated his old underwear and tried to write off the full cost of replacements?

Actually he was using the deductions that he himself lobbied for.

Here he is doing exactly that -- November 21, 1991 Less than four years before he went public to raise funds for that ill-advised casino venture and then washed 'em down the drain. Also before Hillary Clinton was even a FLOTUS, let alone a Senator.

Can't just make shit up here. You will get called on it.

 

[Lakhota]

It looks like most Americans think Hillary won.

NBC/WSJ poll
Clinton Trump (4-way) 46%-35%
Clinton Trump (2-way) 52%-38%

SHOCK POLL: HILLARY 46 TRUMP 35

 

[Norman]

It looks like most Americans think Hillary won.

NBC/WSJ poll
Clinton Trump (4-way) 46%-35%
Clinton Trump (2-way) 52%-38%

SHOCK POLL: HILLARY 46 TRUMP 35

The media paid by Clintons found that out... *Shocker*



These guys have lost all their credibility.

 

[Maryland Patriot]

Judging the winner or loser of a debate so soon after the debate is a mostly subjective endeavor. The objective results will depend on legitimate polls that allow for a day or more of discussion and consideration by the public. The answer will also depend on the " definition" one uses of "winning" or "losing".

winning or losing simply indicates which policy those that take place in the poll agree with.
And, polls can be made to say whatever one wants them to say. Its why I don't take too much interest in polls.

I don't think the policies have much to do with it. Most folks have already decided on their candidate by the time the debates occur. The candidates are trying to influence a small minority of undecided voters and fence sitters. Those folks pretty much know the positions of the candidates and are focusing on which candidate appears to be "Presidential", how they handle themselves under pressure and how well they can "think on their feet". It takes a big issue and incident to divert those kinds of voters. That is why surprises" and unpredicted scandals or situations have so much impact.
The current competing scandals are hopelessly unequal. Trump is using old scandals that simply do not garner much attention or serious consideration by anyone but the already decided voters who already support him. Clinton is using fresh scandals that draw curiosity and interest. Parading out a bunch of old women with unproven allegations or at the very least, irrelevant allegations from a quarter of a century ago don't impress the voters so much. Trump, on the other hand, is standing by some pretty obnoxious behavior and making his comments made years ago relevant today because of his refusal to take responsibility for his screw up. The guy's ego will not allow him to show or give a genuine apology.

I’m pretty sure Trump released the video himself to get attention away from his not paying federal income taxes for 20 years.

So its still a problem that he didn't pay or paid minimal taxes by using the deductions that the federal government (Hillary) set up? those same deductions that Hillary and Bill use to limit their exposure to tax?
Do you think Trump donated his old underwear and tried to write off the full cost of replacements?

Actually he was using the deductions that he himself lobbied for.

Here he is doing exactly that -- November 21, 1991 Less than four years before he went public to raise funds and then washed it down the drain. Also before Hillary Clinton was even a FLOTUS, let alone a Senator.

Can't just make shit up here. You will get called on it.

Really not a concern what he lobbied for. The fact remains that he has never been in a position to vote on the deductions.
Not my fault that asked for something and the rich democrats in office decided they could also avoid paying tax so they passed it.
I remember lobbying for having my allowance doubled when I was a child living at home. My parents voted me down. I had no say.
See how that works?
he asked, they gave.