Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The way Trump moved around the stage and stalked Clinton, I would have told him to back the flock up. That said, it affirmed my thought that Clinton is just more knowledgeable about policy.

Did you watch the debate? I'm guessing you only looked at the pictures of it. Hillary was the one moving on stage... not in a bad way. She would just walk over to the audience. This made her position be in front of Trump. Trump just kind of stayed where he was when she did this. Of course, the photographs make it look different from what it was.

+1. During the debate I was wondering, why is Clinton going to Trump's side all the time? If anything, she was the one stalking him.

You two are delusional. She moved to speak to the person asking the question. Trump paced the ENTIRE time. He didn't stop or sit down once. Nor did he ever speak to the actual audience.

Well, that's her choice, but she was indeed the one walking over to Trump's side all the time -- which he didn't do.

If that helped her better "speak to the actual audience," we'll see. Frank Luntz' focus groups of undecideds had Trump as the clear debate winner:
http://ijr.com/2016/10/710889-before-debate-voters-in-focus-group-were-evenly-split-on-trump-hillary-afterwards-wow/

It was her choice and it was the right choice. That is what is done during town hall debates. He didn't stop moving even when he wasn't speaking, which looked strange. As far as who won, there are scientific polls showing the opposite.

Link, please (I know of no scientific poll on this, one way or the other)

Here you go. Two scientific polls showing she won. They discuss the unscientific ones as well

https://www.google.com/amp/www.vox.com/platform/amp/2016/10/10/13223134/second-presidential-debate-poll-trump-clinton?client=safari

Those are not scientific polls, they contain a significantly larger percentage of Democrats than Republicans.

What IS surprising is the CNN poll is that the percentage of folks saying "Hillary won" is lower than the percentage of Dems in the poll.

They are scientific but let's stick with the one unscientific poll that shows he won. Whatever makes your day.

http://www.newsmax.com/t/newsmax/article/750486

No change. In the tank for Hillary. Gave more money to the campaign this morning. I can't wait for her to put that orange groper away.

Anonymous wrote:The rule is that the audience is supposed to be keep reactions to themselves.

He was enforcing said rules.

You are not too bright.

He can enforce the rules, that's fine. It was the panic in which he did it that surprised and amused me.

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?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The way Trump moved around the stage and stalked Clinton, I would have told him to back the flock up. That said, it affirmed my thought that Clinton is just more knowledgeable about policy.

Did you watch the debate? I'm guessing you only looked at the pictures of it. Hillary was the one moving on stage... not in a bad way. She would just walk over to the audience. This made her position be in front of Trump. Trump just kind of stayed where he was when she did this. Of course, the photographs make it look different from what it was.

+1. During the debate I was wondering, why is Clinton going to Trump's side all the time? If anything, she was the one stalking him.

You two are delusional. She moved to speak to the person asking the question. Trump paced the ENTIRE time. He didn't stop or sit down once. Nor did he ever speak to the actual audience.

Well, that's her choice, but she was indeed the one walking over to Trump's side all the time -- which he didn't do.

If that helped her better "speak to the actual audience," we'll see. Frank Luntz' focus groups of undecideds had Trump as the clear debate winner:
http://ijr.com/2016/10/710889-before-debate-voters-in-focus-group-were-evenly-split-on-trump-hillary-afterwards-wow/

It was her choice and it was the right choice. That is what is done during town hall debates. He didn't stop moving even when he wasn't speaking, which looked strange. As far as who won, there are scientific polls showing the opposite.

Link, please (I know of no scientific poll on this, one way or the other)

Here you go. Two scientific polls showing she won. They discuss the unscientific ones as well

https://www.google.com/amp/www.vox.com/platform/amp/2016/10/10/13223134/second-presidential-debate-poll-trump-clinton?client=safari

Those are not scientific polls, they contain a significantly larger percentage of Democrats than Republicans.

What IS surprising is the CNN poll is that the percentage of folks saying "Hillary won" is lower than the percentage of Dems in the poll.

The rule is that the audience is supposed to be keep reactions to themselves.

He was enforcing said rules.

You are not too bright.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The way Trump moved around the stage and stalked Clinton, I would have told him to back the flock up. That said, it affirmed my thought that Clinton is just more knowledgeable about policy.

Did you watch the debate? I'm guessing you only looked at the pictures of it. Hillary was the one moving on stage... not in a bad way. She would just walk over to the audience. This made her position be in front of Trump. Trump just kind of stayed where he was when she did this. Of course, the photographs make it look different from what it was.

+1. During the debate I was wondering, why is Clinton going to Trump's side all the time? If anything, she was the one stalking him.

You two are delusional. She moved to speak to the person asking the question. Trump paced the ENTIRE time. He didn't stop or sit down once. Nor did he ever speak to the actual audience.

Well, that's her choice, but she was indeed the one walking over to Trump's side all the time -- which he didn't do.

If that helped her better "speak to the actual audience," we'll see. Frank Luntz' focus groups of undecideds had Trump as the clear debate winner:
http://ijr.com/2016/10/710889-before-debate-voters-in-focus-group-were-evenly-split-on-trump-hillary-afterwards-wow/

It was her choice and it was the right choice. That is what is done during town hall debates. He didn't stop moving even when he wasn't speaking, which looked strange. As far as who won, there are scientific polls showing the opposite.

Link, please (I know of no scientific poll on this, one way or the other)

Take the word 'science' lightly when it comes from this complicit media. There are fact checkers supposedly grounded in science that, when you trace back the funding, aren't so neutral.

This is scrambling by the left to pick up the pieces that Trump left them in. You will see more and more 'stuff Trump said and did' come out, just like when the first two sex victims didn't bring Cain down. They found a third who happened to live in the same building as Axelrod did. What are the odds?

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.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The way Trump moved around the stage and stalked Clinton, I would have told him to back the flock up. That said, it affirmed my thought that Clinton is just more knowledgeable about policy.

Did you watch the debate? I'm guessing you only looked at the pictures of it. Hillary was the one moving on stage... not in a bad way. She would just walk over to the audience. This made her position be in front of Trump. Trump just kind of stayed where he was when she did this. Of course, the photographs make it look different from what it was.

+1. During the debate I was wondering, why is Clinton going to Trump's side all the time? If anything, she was the one stalking him.

You two are delusional. She moved to speak to the person asking the question. Trump paced the ENTIRE time. He didn't stop or sit down once. Nor did he ever speak to the actual audience.

Well, that's her choice, but she was indeed the one walking over to Trump's side all the time -- which he didn't do.

If that helped her better "speak to the actual audience," we'll see. Frank Luntz' focus groups of undecideds had Trump as the clear debate winner:
http://ijr.com/2016/10/710889-before-debate-voters-in-focus-group-were-evenly-split-on-trump-hillary-afterwards-wow/

It was her choice and it was the right choice. That is what is done during town hall debates. He didn't stop moving even when he wasn't speaking, which looked strange. As far as who won, there are scientific polls showing the opposite.

Link, please (I know of no scientific poll on this, one way or the other)

Here you go. Two scientific polls showing she won. They discuss the unscientific ones as well

https://www.google.com/amp/www.vox.com/platform/amp/2016/10/10/13223134/second-presidential-debate-poll-trump-clinton?client=safari

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The way Trump moved around the stage and stalked Clinton, I would have told him to back the flock up. That said, it affirmed my thought that Clinton is just more knowledgeable about policy.

Did you watch the debate? I'm guessing you only looked at the pictures of it. Hillary was the one moving on stage... not in a bad way. She would just walk over to the audience. This made her position be in front of Trump. Trump just kind of stayed where he was when she did this. Of course, the photographs make it look different from what it was.

+1. During the debate I was wondering, why is Clinton going to Trump's side all the time? If anything, she was the one stalking him.

You two are delusional. She moved to speak to the person asking the question. Trump paced the ENTIRE time. He didn't stop or sit down once. Nor did he ever speak to the actual audience.

Well, that's her choice, but she was indeed the one walking over to Trump's side all the time -- which he didn't do.

If that helped her better "speak to the actual audience," we'll see. Frank Luntz' focus groups of undecideds had Trump as the clear debate winner:
http://ijr.com/2016/10/710889-before-debate-voters-in-focus-group-were-evenly-split-on-trump-hillary-afterwards-wow/

It was her choice and it was the right choice. That is what is done during town hall debates. He didn't stop moving even when he wasn't speaking, which looked strange. As far as who won, there are scientific polls showing the opposite.

Link, please (I know of no scientific poll on this, one way or the other)

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The way Trump moved around the stage and stalked Clinton, I would have told him to back the flock up. That said, it affirmed my thought that Clinton is just more knowledgeable about policy.

Did you watch the debate? I'm guessing you only looked at the pictures of it. Hillary was the one moving on stage... not in a bad way. She would just walk over to the audience. This made her position be in front of Trump. Trump just kind of stayed where he was when she did this. Of course, the photographs make it look different from what it was.

+1. During the debate I was wondering, why is Clinton going to Trump's side all the time? If anything, she was the one stalking him.

You two are delusional. She moved to speak to the person asking the question. Trump paced the ENTIRE time. He didn't stop or sit down once. Nor did he ever speak to the actual audience.

Well, that's her choice, but she was indeed the one walking over to Trump's side all the time -- which he didn't do.

If that helped her better "speak to the actual audience," we'll see. Frank Luntz' focus groups of undecideds had Trump as the clear debate winner:
http://ijr.com/2016/10/710889-before-debate-voters-in-focus-group-were-evenly-split-on-trump-hillary-afterwards-wow/

It was her choice and it was the right choice. That is what is done during town hall debates. He didn't stop moving even when he wasn't speaking, which looked strange. As far as who won, there are scientific polls showing the opposite.

Anonymous wrote:Frank Luntz. Oh, you're so cute with your grasping at straws.

Well, given that his focus group said the precise opposite after the first debate, he has much more credibility than Hillary-zealots like you.

Frank Luntz. Oh, you're so cute with your grasping at straws.

Nope. I'll never vote for that devil bitch.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The way Trump moved around the stage and stalked Clinton, I would have told him to back the flock up. That said, it affirmed my thought that Clinton is just more knowledgeable about policy.

Did you watch the debate? I'm guessing you only looked at the pictures of it. Hillary was the one moving on stage... not in a bad way. She would just walk over to the audience. This made her position be in front of Trump. Trump just kind of stayed where he was when she did this. Of course, the photographs make it look different from what it was.

+1. During the debate I was wondering, why is Clinton going to Trump's side all the time? If anything, she was the one stalking him.

You two are delusional. She moved to speak to the person asking the question. Trump paced the ENTIRE time. He didn't stop or sit down once. Nor did he ever speak to the actual audience.

Well, that's her choice, but she was indeed the one walking over to Trump's side all the time -- which he didn't do.

If that helped her better "speak to the actual audience," we'll see. Frank Luntz' focus groups of undecideds had Trump as the clear debate winner:
http://ijr.com/2016/10/710889-before-debate-voters-in-focus-group-were-evenly-split-on-trump-hillary-afterwards-wow/