Debate last night - change anything for anyone?

[Anonymous]

Still not voting for either It is like the smartest girl in the class who everyone hates versus the co-captain of the wrestling team who everyone thinks is a jerk.

Who wins will depend if the good girls vote can overcome the bad boys vote. The middle school election goes national

[Anonymous]

This is EXACTLY what I mean by a complicit media:



http://www.breitbart.com/2016-presidential-race/2016/10/10/debate-commission-threatened-throw-bill-clinton-accusers/

"Giuliani said that former Republican National Committee chairman Frank J. Fahrenkopf, the debate commission’s co-chairman, threatened to throw the accusers out if they tried to seat them.

He called out the debate commission’s double standard, after they seated Hillary’s billionaire supporter Mark Cuban in the audience.

“Ten minutes before that debate he tells us he can’t do anything about Cuban sitting in the first row, that security can’t throw him out,” he said."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For me? Yes. It reaffirmed just how complicit the media is with the Democratic party.

It's a very dangerous thing for the media not to be a neutral party.

My vote will go with the Republicans because that can't stand.

If it reaffirmed your notions, then no, it didn't change anything for you. Hate to break it to you, but Fox news and breitbart isn't exactly unbiased sources.

Probably not. But it did change my viewpoint of the media permanently. It's not about bias. It's about moderators being in the tank for one candidate and trying to skew a debate. Cooper was freaking out when the audience spoke. It was great.

Raditz has bigger balls than Cooper

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For me? Yes. It reaffirmed just how complicit the media is with the Democratic party.

It's a very dangerous thing for the media not to be a neutral party.

My vote will go with the Republicans because that can't stand.

The first step for you to heal is to shut off your main sources of "information." No Fox, no right wing radio, no clicking on that forward from your neighbor. You have to come back to Earth.

I don't watch Fox. I do listen to those I know and have come to respect, who work at Breitbart, the Heritage Foundation, and the Media Research Center. I have lost respect for others from the WaPo and NYT because they have fallen into this pit.

I watch what's going on in Europe very carefully. They are our test case for what will happen when refugees are placed here with only the 'vetting' we have. It can't be good if multiple refugees placed here have had active TB. How can one miss that?

What's going on in Europe is slightly different to here with respect to refugees. Most of the "refugees" in Europe are economic refugees. They have admitted it as well. The refugees Canada and the US have accepted are true refugees fleeing a war torn country. Even Pence and Trump admit that there is a humanitarian crisis in Syria, and Pence, at least, wants to do something about even though he tried to stop those refugees from settling in Indiana, but a judge over ruled him.. Trump's view is that it's a lost cause and we should just fold. That's how he operates his business as well. Cut your losses, and run, and let someone else pick up the pieces. Look at his latest flop - the Taj Mahal. You know who gets shafted on that deal... the taxpayers.

[Anonymous]

And this - special prosecutors in the UK are actually considering jailing 'trolls' who post 'humiliating' memes. Gotta say, I'm not a meme fan, but jailing people?

http://www.breitbart.com/london/2016/10/10/trolls-who-post-humiliating-memes-could-be-jailed-under-uk-guidelines/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For me? Yes. It reaffirmed just how complicit the media is with the Democratic party.

It's a very dangerous thing for the media not to be a neutral party.

My vote will go with the Republicans because that can't stand.

If it reaffirmed your notions, then no, it didn't change anything for you. Hate to break it to you, but Fox news and breitbart isn't exactly unbiased sources.

Probably not. But it did change my viewpoint of the media permanently. It's not about bias. It's about moderators being in the tank for one candidate and trying to skew a debate. Cooper was freaking out when the audience spoke. It was great.

Raditz has bigger balls than Cooper

I will agree. She stayed cool.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For me? Yes. It reaffirmed just how complicit the media is with the Democratic party.

It's a very dangerous thing for the media not to be a neutral party.

My vote will go with the Republicans because that can't stand.

The first step for you to heal is to shut off your main sources of "information." No Fox, no right wing radio, no clicking on that forward from your neighbor. You have to come back to Earth.

I don't watch Fox. I do listen to those I know and have come to respect, who work at Breitbart, the Heritage Foundation, and the Media Research Center. I have lost respect for others from the WaPo and NYT because they have fallen into this pit.

I watch what's going on in Europe very carefully. They are our test case for what will happen when refugees are placed here with only the 'vetting' we have. It can't be good if multiple refugees placed here have had active TB. How can one miss that?

What's going on in Europe is slightly different to here with respect to refugees. Most of the "refugees" in Europe are economic refugees. They have admitted it as well. The refugees Canada and the US have accepted are true refugees fleeing a war torn country. Even Pence and Trump admit that there is a humanitarian crisis in Syria, and Pence, at least, wants to do something about even though he tried to stop those refugees from settling in Indiana, but a judge over ruled him.. Trump's view is that it's a lost cause and we should just fold. That's how he operates his business as well. Cut your losses, and run, and let someone else pick up the pieces. Look at his latest flop - the Taj Mahal. You know who gets shafted on that deal... the taxpayers.

We can't take that risk unless the vetting here improves dramatically.

Unions and the state of Atlantic City itself brought down the Taj.

[Anonymous]

I'm a longtime Hillary supporter, and last night didn't change that.

But I did start crying a few times thinking that this is where we are. A boorish, loutish, uninformed, dangerous, pussy grabbing bully has almost as much support for President as a woman whose scandals of email use, foreign policy, and handling affair rumors would be mere blips if they were on the resume of a man.

It's such a double standard, and it's really depressing.

[Anonymous]

Unions and the state of Atlantic City itself brought down the Taj.

Stop using facts! It isn't fair. You will pop too many bubbles and be called a Mean Republican who hates and hates.

[Anonymous]

Can we all agree that "extreme vetting" is something better applied to presidential and vice presidential candidates than to refugees?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Can we all agree that "extreme vetting" is something better applied to presidential and vice presidential candidates than to refugees?

Not when you are talking about people who hate us mixing in with those refugees.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I'm a longtime Hillary supporter, and last night didn't change that.

But I did start crying a few times thinking that this is where we are. A boorish, loutish, uninformed, dangerous, pussy grabbing bully has almost as much support for President as a woman whose scandals of email use, foreign policy, and handling affair rumors would be mere blips if they were on the resume of a man.

It's such a double standard, and it's really depressing.

+1

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This is EXACTLY what I mean by a complicit media:



http://www.breitbart.com/2016-presidential-race/2016/10/10/debate-commission-threatened-throw-bill-clinton-accusers/

"Giuliani said that former Republican National Committee chairman Frank J. Fahrenkopf, the debate commission’s co-chairman, threatened to throw the accusers out if they tried to seat them.

He called out the debate commission’s double standard, after they seated Hillary’s billionaire supporter Mark Cuban in the audience.

“Ten minutes before that debate he tells us he can’t do anything about Cuban sitting in the first row, that security can’t throw him out,” he said."

Was Cuban accused of sexual assault, or did he accuse Trump of sexual assault? What's your leap of logic here?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is EXACTLY what I mean by a complicit media:



http://www.breitbart.com/2016-presidential-race/2016/10/10/debate-commission-threatened-throw-bill-clinton-accusers/

"Giuliani said that former Republican National Committee chairman Frank J. Fahrenkopf, the debate commission’s co-chairman, threatened to throw the accusers out if they tried to seat them.

He called out the debate commission’s double standard, after they seated Hillary’s billionaire supporter Mark Cuban in the audience.

“Ten minutes before that debate he tells us he can’t do anything about Cuban sitting in the first row, that security can’t throw him out,” he said."

Was Cuban accused of sexual assault, or did he accuse Trump of sexual assault? What's your leap of logic here?

Trump's supporters were seated in the audience, just not in the family section. Cuban wasn't seated in the family section either. But I like it when Trump and his supporters complain like this because it exposes them for the whining little babies that they are.

[Anonymous]

Prior to the debate I really felt that the chance of Trump winning was getting to the point that I was beginning to lose hope. Heading into the second debate, I was really nervous whether Trump can stay on strategy rather than react to attacks on his personality faults.

I still think he could have done a lot better answering the tax question, but maybe his strategy team has reasons not to get too complicated into the tax issues.

After last night, I believe that he at the very least came out even if not won. Many times during the debate, it was obvious that Hillary was hunting for answers she didn't have, drawing out her sentences and frequently asking people to just go to her website for fact checks. It is as if she was caught off guard by Trump's performance in contrast to the first debate.

Many analysts believe that he needs to have a clear win in this second debate in order to pull out ahead. I don't think we have that, so I am still worried. However, his performance does give me some hope towards the third debate.