gunsnewing wrote:Donald J. TRUMP - president of the UNITED States of AMERICA

This post speaks volumes about trump's base.

gunsnewing wrote:Donald J. TRUMP - president of the UNITED States of AMERICA

????????????
By the way, it is President...not president.

The race basically ended tonight...the only thing worth betting on is whether or not he mans up
and gives a proper concession speech.

The guy has totally demeaned the GOP and American democracy, but it was fun to watch her toy
with him tonight.

He is the type of candidate you would expect to see in a political satire movie, or in a series of Onion articles, not in an actual campaign for President.

He is a tragic joke, but unfortunately, the joke is on this nation.

gunsnewing wrote:Donald J. TRUMP - president of the UNITED States of AMERICA

DJT could not answer with any specifics and HRC avoided every single question where she was vulnerable and robotically when to her talking points all night long. DJT just mindlessly rambled from one topic to another spewing the same lines over and over again...so bad, so bad.

Two topics stood out for me with HRC. Her Clinton Foundation answer was just plain awful. Can someone say guilty as charged? Then when DJT talked about the Chicago Rally incident, she did not even try deny she involvement and changed the subject so fast...so fast. To be honest, DJT missed so many opportunities to challenge her and then just started babbling...OMG!

We are in so much trouble...so much.

GoNyGoNyGo wrote:Last night was another disgrace. We all lose in this election.

DJT could not answer with any specifics and HRC avoided every single question where she was vulnerable and robotically when to her talking points all night long. DJT just mindlessly rambled from one topic to another spewing the same lines over and over again...so bad, so bad.

Two topics stood out for me with HRC. Her Clinton Foundation answer was just plain awful. Can someone say guilty as charged? Then when DJT talked about the Chicago Rally incident, she did not even try deny she involvement and changed the subject so fast...so fast. To be honest, DJT missed so many opportunities to challenge her and then just started babbling...OMG!

We are in so much trouble...so much.

Bonn1997 wrote:

GoNyGoNyGo wrote:Last night was another disgrace. We all lose in this election.

DJT could not answer with any specifics and HRC avoided every single question where she was vulnerable and robotically when to her talking points all night long. DJT just mindlessly rambled from one topic to another spewing the same lines over and over again...so bad, so bad.

Two topics stood out for me with HRC. Her Clinton Foundation answer was just plain awful. Can someone say guilty as charged? Then when DJT talked about the Chicago Rally incident, she did not even try deny she involvement and changed the subject so fast...so fast. To be honest, DJT missed so many opportunities to challenge her and then just started babbling...OMG!

We are in so much trouble...so much.

Guilty as charged of what?! What law did her foundation break? You may not like the fact that she got countries like Saudi Arabia to spend money on HIV treatment and natural disaster victims, but it's not a crime. (She should have spun this as a good thing, though. She got these countries to help a lot of victims! Would you rather these people just died of AIDS?) Remember, the Clintons take zero dollars from the foundation. The foundation just gets treatment to people. It has a higher rating than the American Red Cross.
And on your first point, you're holding Hillary to a higher standard than any other politicians. ALL politicians will change the topic to what they want to talk about and rely on talking points.

Yep. they do work for Aids patients and that is commendable. Nothing else to see here, move on.

I held DJT to the same standard.

GoNyGoNyGo wrote:Last night was another disgrace. We all lose in this election.

DJT could not answer with any specifics and HRC avoided every single question where she was vulnerable and robotically when to her talking points all night long. DJT just mindlessly rambled from one topic to another spewing the same lines over and over again...so bad, so bad.

Two topics stood out for me with HRC. Her Clinton Foundation answer was just plain awful. Can someone say guilty as charged? Then when DJT talked about the Chicago Rally incident, she did not even try deny she involvement and changed the subject so fast...so fast. To be honest, DJT missed so many opportunities to challenge her and then just started babbling...OMG!

We are in so much trouble...so much.

GoNyGoNyGo wrote:

holfresh wrote:Trump's love/loyalty towards Putin is fascinating..

Yes, I agree. Fascinating or Scary? There is obviously something to it. Maybe we find out after the election.

However please remember who did the "Reset" with them. How is that working out? Also what about the Uranium deal? Follow the money on that one and you will see HRC and the CF are involved. She is only anti-Russia know because it is a cover for the leaks. On that subject, Why did the US, John Kerry, order the internet feed to be cut now? For years JA was doing what he does with no interference from the US. But now? what changed?

Also - I remember how in 2012 when Romney mentioned that Russia was still a threat, he was mocked! How right he was!

Welpee wrote:

GoNyGoNyGo wrote:

holfresh wrote:Trump's love/loyalty towards Putin is fascinating..

Yes, I agree. Fascinating or Scary? There is obviously something to it. Maybe we find out after the election.

However please remember who did the "Reset" with them. How is that working out? Also what about the Uranium deal? Follow the money on that one and you will see HRC and the CF are involved. She is only anti-Russia know because it is a cover for the leaks. On that subject, Why did the US, John Kerry, order the internet feed to be cut now? For years JA was doing what he does with no interference from the US. But now? what changed?

Also - I remember how in 2012 when Romney mentioned that Russia was still a threat, he was mocked! How right he was!

Question: Trump has never held public office, never did anything that didn't benefit himself, shows little understanding of the constitution or world affairs nor does he exhibit the intellectual curiosity to educate himself on such topics, apparently doesn't like to read and gets all is info from TV, he's never wrong on any issue because he's been on both sides of most issues at some point...and he wants to be president? What is the justification again to support him other than he's not Hillary?

He is obviously over his head. I cannot pull the lever for him, HRC, or the other 2 candidates. It really is a disgrace.

GoNyGoNyGo wrote:

fishmike wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

GoNyGoNyGo wrote:Last night was another disgrace. We all lose in this election.

DJT could not answer with any specifics and HRC avoided every single question where she was vulnerable and robotically when to her talking points all night long. DJT just mindlessly rambled from one topic to another spewing the same lines over and over again...so bad, so bad.

Two topics stood out for me with HRC. Her Clinton Foundation answer was just plain awful. Can someone say guilty as charged? Then when DJT talked about the Chicago Rally incident, she did not even try deny she involvement and changed the subject so fast...so fast. To be honest, DJT missed so many opportunities to challenge her and then just started babbling...OMG!

We are in so much trouble...so much.

Guilty as charged of what?! What law did her foundation break? You may not like the fact that she got countries like Saudi Arabia to spend money on HIV treatment and natural disaster victims, but it's not a crime. (She should have spun this as a good thing, though. She got these countries to help a lot of victims! Would you rather these people just died of AIDS?) Remember, the Clintons take zero dollars from the foundation. The foundation just gets treatment to people. It has a higher rating than the American Red Cross.
And on your first point, you're holding Hillary to a higher standard than any other politicians. ALL politicians will change the topic to what they want to talk about and rely on talking points.

attacking the Clinton foundation is a non starter. One of the best and most effective philanthropy orgs in the world. At the beginning of this debate I was telling my wife that despite his idiocy I was voting for Gary, simply to build up his vote count, and living in a very blue state I am not concerned about Trump winning. I only watched the first half, I will catch the 2nd half tonight or tomorrow, but I was very impressed with her answers and ability to articulate on several points. This was the first time I saw her as presidential. I agree Bonn... can you think of a better thing than taking money from those "terrible countries" and using it for good? Return the funds to Saudi Arabia? Why so it can go to "freedom fighters???"

A few things jumped out at me. 1) the moderator was amazing. He really focused the whole event and held the candidates to real answers. 2) Hillary impressed. I thought she offered the most substance on policy and avoided most of the BS, and she appeared very presidential. 3) the sad state of the GOP. Im a child of the 70s and 80s (born in 73). My father was repub, mom was dem and policy was discussed at dinner. Dad was a big Reagan guy. If you were to label my politics I think moderate democrat best fits. Socially I am liberal, but I prefer smaller more conservative gov. In any case I believe the GOP is very important and conservative values are a big part of this country and should be recognized, respected and represented. What Trump stands for is so abysmal and deflating it's simply sad.

I don't agree about the CF but that is fine.

I am a bit older than you. Please realize that both parties are a disgrace in my view. Getting worse each cycle. IMO, Trump is not even a Republican. He has shifted his issues so many times, it is ridicluous. HRC is more right than he is on some issues. MY issue with her, is her absolute corruptness, IMO.

He is a sad candidate for a once great party.

Knickoftime wrote:

martin wrote:Definite it how you will but having the focus of the middle and lower portions of our country and making it a priority as a vehicle to move this country forward would do wonders.

What does that look like, pragmatically?

We've challenged Trump supporters to articulate this policies in this thread, so I think it's fair to ask what specific 'anti-establishment' policies that can get through Congress are we talking about?

Meant to get to this last night but was all tied up flipping between debate and Knicks.

Don't mix 2 things together. There are anti-establishment policies and then there is the prospect of getting them through Congress and those are very separate issues and challenges.

Obama didn't anticipate and take on the challenge part as well as he should have, and part of the problem is convincing the Tea Partiers that change is not possible without their help, gotta get them under the umbrella even if exact policy differences are clear.