I don't think Donald has the, ahem, "stamina" to adequately prepare for the debates.

Giuliani said Trump should pull out of future debates. He is blaming Lester Holt but Trump said Holt was fine, and honestly he was fine.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am really really trying to be open-minded, but I feel like I was watching a different debate than some of you. I saw a poised, prepared, experienced candidate who gave specific policy platforms, used humor appropriately and seriousness besides, who spoke eloquently about important issues, who held her poise when she was provoked, who paid attention to the debate rules but pushed only slightly when she needed to. She didn't come across to me as arrogant or untrustworthy in the least. She looked like exactly what I want in a President.

Versus, a person who gave rambling, incoherent statements that were frequently conflicting and hypocritical even in the same sentence, wo was clearly unprepared and nervous (the amount of movement and water drinking and sniffling was a dead giveaway), who was rude to everyone, who repeatedly lied about things that were easy to confirm, who made racist comments and gave no specific policy ideas and who admitted he pays no federal taxes and has repeatedly filed for bankruptcy.

the main one that gets me is people who think she was arrogant last night. I think she could have been arrogant given who she was debating against, but I didn't read arrogance even a little.

Very eloquently put. Thanks for summing up my views exactly. #imwithher

+1.

Trump could have hit hard in several occasions (such as when he said what a shame it is we have third-world infrastructure and huge debt levels--so where has all the money gone), but he simply wasn't prepared or disciplined to drive points home.

She was better last night.

Reminds me of Obama's first debate against Romney. He too was too arrogant to think he had to prepare much, and he lost big. But he learned his lesson. Did much better in the next debate. Let's see how Kellyanne uses this to refocus him, and if he's willing to do it.

Donald Duck ain't no Obama homeboy

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am really really trying to be open-minded, but I feel like I was watching a different debate than some of you. I saw a poised, prepared, experienced candidate who gave specific policy platforms, used humor appropriately and seriousness besides, who spoke eloquently about important issues, who held her poise when she was provoked, who paid attention to the debate rules but pushed only slightly when she needed to. She didn't come across to me as arrogant or untrustworthy in the least. She looked like exactly what I want in a President.

Versus, a person who gave rambling, incoherent statements that were frequently conflicting and hypocritical even in the same sentence, wo was clearly unprepared and nervous (the amount of movement and water drinking and sniffling was a dead giveaway), who was rude to everyone, who repeatedly lied about things that were easy to confirm, who made racist comments and gave no specific policy ideas and who admitted he pays no federal taxes and has repeatedly filed for bankruptcy.

the main one that gets me is people who think she was arrogant last night. I think she could have been arrogant given who she was debating against, but I didn't read arrogance even a little.

Very eloquently put. Thanks for summing up my views exactly. #imwithher

+1.

Trump could have hit hard in several occasions (such as when he said what a shame it is we have third-world infrastructure and huge debt levels--so where has all the money gone), but he simply wasn't prepared or disciplined to drive points home.

She was better last night.

I also wish that he had hit her hard when she talked about being so concerned about hacking and cybersecurity. This from a woman who was using an unauthorized, less secure server in her basement to send classified information.

IVANA Trump has rushed to the defence of The Donald, recanting a harsh report about their divorce and saying her ex-husband would make an “incredible” president.

“I have recently read some comments attributed to me from nearly 30 years ago at a time of very high tension,” the 66-year-old Czech-American told CNN in response to an article that said Ivana once accused Donald of ­raping her.

“The story is totally without merit,” she said in a statement on Tuesday.

“Donald and I are the best of friends and together have raised three children that we love and are very proud of. I have nothing but fondness for Donald and wish him the best of luck on his campaign. Incidentally, I think he would make an incredible president.”

--- compared to Bill Clinton's alleged rape victims, none of them forgave him ---

In September, Clinton tweeted that every sexual assault survivor had “the right to be believed.” In November, she reiterated that “every survivor of sexual assault deserves to be heard, believed, and supported.” The following month, she was asked at a campaign event whether the handful of women who’ve accused her husband, former President Bill Clinton, of sexual harassment and assault — Juanita Broaddrick included — deserved to be “believed” as well.

“Well, I would say that everybody should be believed at first until they are disbelieved based on evidence,” Clinton replied with a smile that was just one awkward beat too slow.

Broaddrick oozes genuine, sweet-as-sweet-tea Southern hospitality, but she went “ballistic” when she heard Clinton’s statements on sexual assault, she recently told me. It had been years since Broaddrick had spoken publicly about the Clintons. Sitting at home, alone and fuming, Broaddrick thought to herself, What can I say to make this believable to people, that this really happened to me? She signed back in to her dormant Twitter and started typing. In January, one tweet went viral: “I was 35 years old when Bill Clinton, Ark. Attorney General raped me and Hillary tried to silence me. I am now 73….it never goes away.”

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Trump started strong with his trade war talk. That's his strong suit and there's probably some validity in what he says there. After that, he fell apart. His discussion on NATO is especially disturbing.

His discussion on NATO really hit a home with me. It's time to re-evaluate all these Cold War relics and have our junior "partners" start funding at least to their treat obligations. It would be great if they paid their fair share. The only obligation under article 5 is to provide what support each country deems appropriate up to and including military aid. It does not say each country must respond with military force.

Trump is a great thinker. I can't remember any other politician approach this issue with this outside of the box thinking. They will be starting to pay their fair share when he gets into the office.

The problem is, how is he gonna change the situation?You can't force companies to do anything. Most of them have global presence and America is not the largest market. Rest of the world is and especially China. So yeah he talks the good talk about trade BUT there is no solution. When you slap tariff of 25% on things made outside USA, price of things goes up by 25% and Americans pay for it. Sales will drop resulting in millions of job cuts.

He goes to trade war with China. China shuts down its 1.3 billion market to USA, who will lose , American companies. China is the largest market for GM, Microsoft, caterpillar, and hundreds of others. China also holds over 1 trillion$ Of USA debt. Any trade war with China will result in job losses in USA when china kicks out USA companies. China holds all the cards. Trump with his ADHD will be eaten alive by the shrewd Chinese.

+1 Unlike the US, the Chinese gov't has much tighter controls on its companies, and has no qualms about making it extremely difficult for foreign companies to compete there. I get that you think that's a good thing, but it's quite un-American. If this is how people want the US to run then you don't love democracy. To me, he basically is saying we should be exactly like China. I think he wants the media to be controlled like it is in China, too, or Russia. Given that he wants the US to have more manufacturing like China, he does seem determined to mirror that country.

Well win or lose in a performance [again Oscar v straight to Netflix] we do know that 1400 people lose jobs in Indianapolis and our federal taxes are paying that city $238 per person plus change and money will be spent on an economic development hire.

1 hire-1400=1399 unemployed.

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Just reported that Bill will be watching from backstage. Probably afraid the camera will catch him nodding off or zoning out again. Can't have the public realize that the person Hill will be relying on for advice has neurological issues, too.

Trump did him and his family a great favor by refraining to go after his horrendous treatment of dozens of women. He was presidential last night and Hillary was in the mud. She apparently had a great memory of what Trump said in a pageant but can't recall 39 times in her interview with FBI.

Trump would only look like a hypocrite. One of his own ex-wives accused him of rape (though she later recanted). He has had multiple affairs. Not exactly Mr. Squeaky Clean here. Bill is pretty gross but Trump is no better.

Ivana Trump didn't recant. Her rape allegation was made under oath so recanting it could put her in legal jeopardy. There is also a current case accusing Trump of rape.

Ivana endorsed Trump for president. She said nothing happened. The only president impeached for lying is Bill Clinton. Hillary is a perfect match. She lied to congress and FBI, and could be impeached too if voters are stupid enough to elect her.

Please cite where Ivana said that nothing happened. This is not about the Clintons, but about the misinformation that you are trying to spread.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am really really trying to be open-minded, but I feel like I was watching a different debate than some of you. I saw a poised, prepared, experienced candidate who gave specific policy platforms, used humor appropriately and seriousness besides, who spoke eloquently about important issues, who held her poise when she was provoked, who paid attention to the debate rules but pushed only slightly when she needed to. She didn't come across to me as arrogant or untrustworthy in the least. She looked like exactly what I want in a President.

Versus, a person who gave rambling, incoherent statements that were frequently conflicting and hypocritical even in the same sentence, wo was clearly unprepared and nervous (the amount of movement and water drinking and sniffling was a dead giveaway), who was rude to everyone, who repeatedly lied about things that were easy to confirm, who made racist comments and gave no specific policy ideas and who admitted he pays no federal taxes and has repeatedly filed for bankruptcy.

the main one that gets me is people who think she was arrogant last night. I think she could have been arrogant given who she was debating against, but I didn't read arrogance even a little.

Very eloquently put. Thanks for summing up my views exactly. #imwithher

+1.

Trump could have hit hard in several occasions (such as when he said what a shame it is we have third-world infrastructure and huge debt levels--so where has all the money gone), but he simply wasn't prepared or disciplined to drive points home.

She was better last night.

Reminds me of Obama's first debate against Romney. He too was too arrogant to think he had to prepare much, and he lost big. But he learned his lesson. Did much better in the next debate. Let's see how Kellyanne uses this to refocus him, and if he's willing to do it.

He said he might "hit her harder". Does that sound like he's ready to buckle down and prepare?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am really really trying to be open-minded, but I feel like I was watching a different debate than some of you. I saw a poised, prepared, experienced candidate who gave specific policy platforms, used humor appropriately and seriousness besides, who spoke eloquently about important issues, who held her poise when she was provoked, who paid attention to the debate rules but pushed only slightly when she needed to. She didn't come across to me as arrogant or untrustworthy in the least. She looked like exactly what I want in a President.

Versus, a person who gave rambling, incoherent statements that were frequently conflicting and hypocritical even in the same sentence, wo was clearly unprepared and nervous (the amount of movement and water drinking and sniffling was a dead giveaway), who was rude to everyone, who repeatedly lied about things that were easy to confirm, who made racist comments and gave no specific policy ideas and who admitted he pays no federal taxes and has repeatedly filed for bankruptcy.

the main one that gets me is people who think she was arrogant last night. I think she could have been arrogant given who she was debating against, but I didn't read arrogance even a little.

Very eloquently put. Thanks for summing up my views exactly. #imwithher

+1.

Trump could have hit hard in several occasions (such as when he said what a shame it is we have third-world infrastructure and huge debt levels--so where has all the money gone), but he simply wasn't prepared or disciplined to drive points home.

She was better last night.

Reminds me of Obama's first debate against Romney. He too was too arrogant to think he had to prepare much, and he lost big. But he learned his lesson. Did much better in the next debate. Let's see how Kellyanne uses this to refocus him, and if he's willing to do it.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Trump started strong with his trade war talk. That's his strong suit and there's probably some validity in what he says there. After that, he fell apart. His discussion on NATO is especially disturbing.

His discussion on NATO really hit a home with me. It's time to re-evaluate all these Cold War relics and have our junior "partners" start funding at least to their treat obligations. It would be great if they paid their fair share. The only obligation under article 5 is to provide what support each country deems appropriate up to and including military aid. It does not say each country must respond with military force.

Trump is a great thinker. I can't remember any other politician approach this issue with this outside of the box thinking. They will be starting to pay their fair share when he gets into the office.

The problem is, how is he gonna change the situation?You can't force companies to do anything. Most of them have global presence and America is not the largest market. Rest of the world is and especially China. So yeah he talks the good talk about trade BUT there is no solution. When you slap tariff of 25% on things made outside USA, price of things goes up by 25% and Americans pay for it. Sales will drop resulting in millions of job cuts.

He goes to trade war with China. China shuts down its 1.3 billion market to USA, who will lose , American companies. China is the largest market for GM, Microsoft, caterpillar, and hundreds of others. China also holds over 1 trillion$ Of USA debt. Any trade war with China will result in job losses in USA when china kicks out USA companies. China holds all the cards. Trump with his ADHD will be eaten alive by the shrewd Chinese.

China does not play fair. Sure, GM has a large market in China, but where are those cars made? How many cars are shipped from US to China? With regards to Microsoft, piracy of Microsoft products in China is rampant and the Chinese government has done very little to protect the intellectual property of US companies. On the other hand, it's a matter of Chinese government policy to support a domestic competitor to US companies. Google succeeds just about everywhere else, but not China, Apple sales are good, but loses out to domestic brands like Lenovo, Xiaomi, and Huawei. Even Uber, that company that has shown a willingness to flaunt local laws in the name of growth, has been forced to sell their operations in China to a domestic competitor. There are numerous other examples of this: competitive US companies that cannot compete in China because the market there is not free. China is kicking out US companies as is, what they allow to remain, they cannot do without. So any threat by them to kick out US companies is empty at best.

Lets recognize the situation for what it is: US is engaged in lopsided trade with countries all over the world. For too long we have been the only one operating in good faith. If the rest of the world is not willing to honestly engage in free and equitable trade, then I don't see why the US should continue alone down this road.

The world is not run by fairness. It is run by what cards you have to play and CHINA holds all the cards. If you read any history china was the worlds largest economy until about 1800s. You know what collapsed their economy. They couldn't compete with slave labor and their products became pricier. And they thought they can win by closing their border. They have learned their lesson well. They are using their low wage to their advantage just as the USA used free slave labor to their advantage.

In the world of competitive advantages, you need to have big cards to play and win. US is a small market and that is a huge weakness and to offset this you need NAFTA and TPP to isolate huge markets like China.

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Just reported that Bill will be watching from backstage. Probably afraid the camera will catch him nodding off or zoning out again. Can't have the public realize that the person Hill will be relying on for advice has neurological issues, too.

Trump did him and his family a great favor by refraining to go after his horrendous treatment of dozens of women. He was presidential last night and Hillary was in the mud. She apparently had a great memory of what Trump said in a pageant but can't recall 39 times in her interview with FBI.

Trump would only look like a hypocrite. One of his own ex-wives accused him of rape (though she later recanted). He has had multiple affairs. Not exactly Mr. Squeaky Clean here. Bill is pretty gross but Trump is no better.

Ivana Trump didn't recant. Her rape allegation was made under oath so recanting it could put her in legal jeopardy. There is also a current case accusing Trump of rape.

Ivana endorsed Trump for president. She said nothing happened. The only president impeached for lying is Bill Clinton. Hillary is a perfect match. She lied to congress and FBI, and could be impeached too if voters are stupid enough to elect her.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am really really trying to be open-minded, but I feel like I was watching a different debate than some of you. I saw a poised, prepared, experienced candidate who gave specific policy platforms, used humor appropriately and seriousness besides, who spoke eloquently about important issues, who held her poise when she was provoked, who paid attention to the debate rules but pushed only slightly when she needed to. She didn't come across to me as arrogant or untrustworthy in the least. She looked like exactly what I want in a President.

Versus, a person who gave rambling, incoherent statements that were frequently conflicting and hypocritical even in the same sentence, wo was clearly unprepared and nervous (the amount of movement and water drinking and sniffling was a dead giveaway), who was rude to everyone, who repeatedly lied about things that were easy to confirm, who made racist comments and gave no specific policy ideas and who admitted he pays no federal taxes and has repeatedly filed for bankruptcy.

the main one that gets me is people who think she was arrogant last night. I think she could have been arrogant given who she was debating against, but I didn't read arrogance even a little.

Very eloquently put. Thanks for summing up my views exactly. #imwithher

+1.

Trump could have hit hard in several occasions (such as when he said what a shame it is we have third-world infrastructure and huge debt levels--so where has all the money gone), but he simply wasn't prepared or disciplined to drive points home.

She was better last night.

I think that now the paid Trump trolls get EARN their money, that debate was such a takedown.

Anonymous wrote:I'm sure this has been covered but what was up with Trump's breathing? Maybe he's the one who is sick.

His was sniffing too. Coke nose?

I'm sure this has been covered but what was up with Trump's breathing? Maybe he's the one who is sick.