The third debate
Oct 20, 2016 13:55:31 #
Did you folks notice that light in the front of hilry's podium the last 2 debates that is a teleprompter that she was using watch her eyes when she is talking and you can see that she is looking down to read it.
Oct 20, 2016 13:58:03 #
JFlorio wrote:
I wonder how the media will spin it?
Up here in Communist Washington State, 5 MINUTES after the debate was over, our local lib/com media said that 70% of voters said that Hitlery won.
So theres your answer. Hell, there wasnt even enough time for them to FART Hitlery, before they said she won. lol
Oct 20, 2016 13:58:44 #
Progressive One wrote:
It was just a matter of time....the writing was on the wall.
Hey KHH1...er...Democrat in 2016...er Progressive One, you might want to reconsider...
White House Watch
Rasmussen Reports White House Watch: Trump Edges Ahead
Rasmussen Reports ~ Thursday, October 20, 2016
It’s too early to measure the impact of last night’s final presidential debate, but Republican Donald Trump now has a three-point lead nationally on Democrat Hillary Rodham Clinton.
The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone and online White House Watch survey finds Trump with 43% support among Likely U.S. Voters to Clinton’s 40%. Six percent (6%) still prefer Libertarian candidate Gary Johnson, and three percent (3%) favor Green Party nominee Jill Stein. Another three percent (3%) like some other candidate, and six percent (6%) are undecided. (To see survey question wording, click here.)
Among the 87% of voters who say they are now sure how they will vote, it’s Trump 48%, Clinton 46%. Four percent (4%) of these voters choose Johnson, two percent (2%) Stein. Among the voters who say they still could change their minds between now and Election Day, it’s Trump 36%, Clinton 30%, Johnson 23% and Stein 11%.
The survey of 1,500 Likely Voters was conducted on October 17-19, 2016 by Rasmussen Reports. The margin of sampling error is ±2.5 percentage points with a 95% level of confidence. Field work for all Rasmussen Reports surveys is conducted by Pulse Opinion Research, LLC.
Oct 20, 2016 14:00:05 #
otbanjo wrote:
Did you folks notice that light in the front of hilry's podium the last 2 debates that is a teleprompter that she was using watch her eyes when she is talking and you can see that she is looking down to read it.
To get on the teleprompter, she must have received the questions before the debate in order to set up answers for her on the prompter.
Oct 20, 2016 14:02:24 #
Progressive One wrote:
It was just a matter of time....the writing was on the wall.
The writing on the wall was
"MENE MENE TEKEL UPHARSIN."
King Belshazzar fell dead.
Huh, wonder why.
Oct 20, 2016 14:04:26 #
otbanjo wrote:
Did you folks notice that light in the front of hilry's podium the last 2 debates that is a teleprompter that she was using watch her eyes when she is talking and you can see that she is looking down to read it.
So absolutely obvious.
Oct 20, 2016 14:08:08 #
A Frightening Preview of Hillary’s America – Dark and unaccountable
Daniel Greenfield ~ October 20, 2016
Hillary Clinton, of all people, summed up this debate and this election best.
“What kind of country are we going to be?”
The Evita of Arkansas is a compulsive liar who has never told the truth in her life. But this time around she was right. This election does not come down to the personalities. It comes down to the kind of country we are going to have. And in the third debate, the one that took a break from the petty haranguing of media lackeys like Lester Holt and Martha Raddatz, the issues took center stage.
The core issue came into focus with the very first question asked by Chris Wallace. Wallace asked Hillary and Trump if their vision for the Supreme Court was based on the Constitution or not. Hillary launched into a spiel about a Supreme Court that would stand for class warfare and gay rights. The only time she mentioned the Constitution was when she insisted that the Senate was constitutionally obligated to confirm Obama’s nominee. That is her vision of the Constitution; a document that grants her power to reshape the country without regard to the Founders or any previously existing rights or freedoms.
It fell to Trump to speak of justices who would “interpret the Constitution the way the founders wanted it interpreted”. And that is the core issue. Personalities and politicians come and go. Today’s trending topic has been forgotten a day later. Outrages explode like fireworks and then fizzle out.
The weapons of mass distraction have been deployed and detonated. They keep going off in blasts of media gunpowder to divert our attention from whether we will live under the Constitution or under the Hillary. Will we have the rights and freedom bound into the Constitution or corruption justified with cant about the need to defend the oppressed by giving unlimited power to the oppressors.
The final debate finally focused on the issues. Instead of leading with the scandals, it asked about gun control, amnesty and open borders. It asked what kind of country are we going to be?
And, are we going to be a country at all or an open border weeping undocumented migrants destroying what’s left of the middle class as the masterminds rob the country blind while preaching piously to us about all the poor Syrians, Mexicans and LGBT youth they want to protect?
Americans have had a preview of the country that Hillary Clinton would create under Obama. They received yet another preview of it at a final debate in which Hillary echoed Obama’s Orwellian language in which endless spending was dubbed “investing” and in which government would save the middle class by regulating and taxing it out of existence for the greater good of the officially oppressed.
Hillary Clinton promised free college and cradle to grave education that would be debt free. Americans would be the ones plummeting deeper and deeper into debt to pay for degrees in gender studies. She promised viewers pie in the sky to be paid for by higher taxes on the rich. But as Trump pointed out, that’s the class that her donors come from. Did Warren Buffett and George Soros invest all that money into her victory just to pay higher taxes? Did they do it right after they bought the Brooklyn Bridge?
Or will Americans buy the bridge believing Hillary’s promise that she “will not add a penny to the debt”?
The only way Hillary can hope to do that is to appoint Bernie Madoff to be her Treasury Secretary.
When Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump wrangled over tax hikes or tax cuts, the debate is whether crooks like the Clintons should have a massive pot of taxpayer money to “invest” into their donors.
But beneath it is the same big question; do we live under the Constitution or under the Hillary?
In Hillary Country, just like in Obama Country, there are always more “investments” to make and you had better pay your “fair share”. There are always special identity group interests that need money. There are always more regulations, taxes, fines and fees. And it’s all for the children.
The ones that Hillary will grimace at when the cameras are on her and nudge away with the point of her shoe when the little red light turns off.
But there is no lie that Hillary Clinton will not tell and no lie that her pet media fact checkers will not back her up on. Obama doubled the national debt and yet Hillary insists that, “We're actually on the path to eliminating the national debt”. That might be true only insofar as we’re approaching the point that no one will lend us any money. We’re headed toward a $20 trillion national debt.
And Hillary’s plans won’t add a penny to the national debt. They’ll add hundreds of trillions of pennies.
Hillary talked of bringing “our country together” and not “pitting of people one against the other” and instead “we celebrate our diversity”. If she does half as good a job as Obama, these celebrations of diversity will climax with race riots across America. How exactly does Hillary plan to unite with the “deplorables” of the country? How has Hillary united anyone in the country except in disdain?
Hillary Clinton’s entire campaign pitch is based on demonizing Trump and his supporters. She believes that if she convinces enough voters that Trump is the devil, they may hold their noses and accept the return of the corrupt Clinton dynasty and everything that it represents. That gamble is what we are seeing on the news. It is what we heard at the debate. Hillary cannot win on her own merits.
She warned at the final debate of the “dark, unaccountable money to come into our electoral system”. It’s hard to imagine a bigger source of dark, accountable money than a foundation being used as an international slush fund that has been beyond unaccountable.
But it’s Hillary’s vision of government that is dark and unaccountable. From the beginning of the debate, she made it clear that she does not wish to be accountable to the Constitution. Her email cover up made it painfully clear that she does not want to be accountable to the American people. Instead Hillary would like everyone in the country to be accountable to her. A mass of regulations and enforcers will force everyone to be accountable to the dark and unaccountable force in the White House.
“It really does come down to what kind of country we are going to have,” Hillary repeated.
It does indeed. Americans have had a preview of the kind of country that Hillary would bring into being.
Daniel Greenfield ~ October 20, 2016
Hillary Clinton, of all people, summed up this debate and this election best.
“What kind of country are we going to be?”
The Evita of Arkansas is a compulsive liar who has never told the truth in her life. But this time around she was right. This election does not come down to the personalities. It comes down to the kind of country we are going to have. And in the third debate, the one that took a break from the petty haranguing of media lackeys like Lester Holt and Martha Raddatz, the issues took center stage.
The core issue came into focus with the very first question asked by Chris Wallace. Wallace asked Hillary and Trump if their vision for the Supreme Court was based on the Constitution or not. Hillary launched into a spiel about a Supreme Court that would stand for class warfare and gay rights. The only time she mentioned the Constitution was when she insisted that the Senate was constitutionally obligated to confirm Obama’s nominee. That is her vision of the Constitution; a document that grants her power to reshape the country without regard to the Founders or any previously existing rights or freedoms.
It fell to Trump to speak of justices who would “interpret the Constitution the way the founders wanted it interpreted”. And that is the core issue. Personalities and politicians come and go. Today’s trending topic has been forgotten a day later. Outrages explode like fireworks and then fizzle out.
The weapons of mass distraction have been deployed and detonated. They keep going off in blasts of media gunpowder to divert our attention from whether we will live under the Constitution or under the Hillary. Will we have the rights and freedom bound into the Constitution or corruption justified with cant about the need to defend the oppressed by giving unlimited power to the oppressors.
The final debate finally focused on the issues. Instead of leading with the scandals, it asked about gun control, amnesty and open borders. It asked what kind of country are we going to be?
And, are we going to be a country at all or an open border weeping undocumented migrants destroying what’s left of the middle class as the masterminds rob the country blind while preaching piously to us about all the poor Syrians, Mexicans and LGBT youth they want to protect?
Americans have had a preview of the country that Hillary Clinton would create under Obama. They received yet another preview of it at a final debate in which Hillary echoed Obama’s Orwellian language in which endless spending was dubbed “investing” and in which government would save the middle class by regulating and taxing it out of existence for the greater good of the officially oppressed.
Hillary Clinton promised free college and cradle to grave education that would be debt free. Americans would be the ones plummeting deeper and deeper into debt to pay for degrees in gender studies. She promised viewers pie in the sky to be paid for by higher taxes on the rich. But as Trump pointed out, that’s the class that her donors come from. Did Warren Buffett and George Soros invest all that money into her victory just to pay higher taxes? Did they do it right after they bought the Brooklyn Bridge?
Or will Americans buy the bridge believing Hillary’s promise that she “will not add a penny to the debt”?
The only way Hillary can hope to do that is to appoint Bernie Madoff to be her Treasury Secretary.
When Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump wrangled over tax hikes or tax cuts, the debate is whether crooks like the Clintons should have a massive pot of taxpayer money to “invest” into their donors.
But beneath it is the same big question; do we live under the Constitution or under the Hillary?
In Hillary Country, just like in Obama Country, there are always more “investments” to make and you had better pay your “fair share”. There are always special identity group interests that need money. There are always more regulations, taxes, fines and fees. And it’s all for the children.
The ones that Hillary will grimace at when the cameras are on her and nudge away with the point of her shoe when the little red light turns off.
But there is no lie that Hillary Clinton will not tell and no lie that her pet media fact checkers will not back her up on. Obama doubled the national debt and yet Hillary insists that, “We're actually on the path to eliminating the national debt”. That might be true only insofar as we’re approaching the point that no one will lend us any money. We’re headed toward a $20 trillion national debt.
And Hillary’s plans won’t add a penny to the national debt. They’ll add hundreds of trillions of pennies.
Hillary talked of bringing “our country together” and not “pitting of people one against the other” and instead “we celebrate our diversity”. If she does half as good a job as Obama, these celebrations of diversity will climax with race riots across America. How exactly does Hillary plan to unite with the “deplorables” of the country? How has Hillary united anyone in the country except in disdain?
Hillary Clinton’s entire campaign pitch is based on demonizing Trump and his supporters. She believes that if she convinces enough voters that Trump is the devil, they may hold their noses and accept the return of the corrupt Clinton dynasty and everything that it represents. That gamble is what we are seeing on the news. It is what we heard at the debate. Hillary cannot win on her own merits.
She warned at the final debate of the “dark, unaccountable money to come into our electoral system”. It’s hard to imagine a bigger source of dark, accountable money than a foundation being used as an international slush fund that has been beyond unaccountable.
But it’s Hillary’s vision of government that is dark and unaccountable. From the beginning of the debate, she made it clear that she does not wish to be accountable to the Constitution. Her email cover up made it painfully clear that she does not want to be accountable to the American people. Instead Hillary would like everyone in the country to be accountable to her. A mass of regulations and enforcers will force everyone to be accountable to the dark and unaccountable force in the White House.
“It really does come down to what kind of country we are going to have,” Hillary repeated.
It does indeed. Americans have had a preview of the kind of country that Hillary would bring into being.
Oct 20, 2016 14:11:10 #
Morgan wrote:
Yes, as I watched and listened to Trump, I thought...what a complete asshole.
Interesting as that is the same response most capable people would say about you and your response.
Oct 20, 2016 14:15:26 #
otbanjo wrote:
Did you folks notice that light in the front of hilry's podium the last 2 debates that is a teleprompter that she was using watch her eyes when she is talking and you can see that she is looking down to read it.
Yes.
Oct 20, 2016 14:30:36 #
**This guy is the gift that keeps on giving-His OPP-Brand Conservative Emotional Immaturity Is Amazing-The Mouth Outruns The Brain**
Donald Trump: 'I will totally accept' election results 'if I win'
Delaware, Ohio (CNN) — Donald Trump said Thursday he will accept the results of next month's election if he wins, a caveat that threatens to cast unprecedented doubt on the legitimacy of the electoral process.
Trump offered a stunning declaration during the final presidential debate that he might not accept the results of next month's election. In his first speech since the debate, Trump seemed to simultaneously double down on the stance he articulated Wednesday night while also trying to clean it up.
Trump argued forcefully during a rally here that he was being asked to "waive" his right to contest the election after critics slammed him for refusing to pledge to accept the results of the election the previous night during the final presidential debate.
"I would like to promise and pledge to all of my voters and supporters and to all of the people of the United States that I will totally accept the results of this great and historic presidential election, if I win," Trump told supporters here in his first comments since the final debate.
After raising concerns about voter fraud -- instances of which are extremely rare -- Trump also pledged to accept "a clear election result."
"Of course, I would accept a clear election result, but I would also reserve my right to contest or file a legal challenge in the case of a questionable result," Trump said. "And always, I will follow and abide by all of the rules and traditions of all of the many candidates who have come before me. Always."
Trump's remarks Thursday appeared aimed at quelling the outrage he sparked the previous night as Republicans and Democrats alike balked at Trump's response that "I will look at it at the time," when asked if he would concede the election should he lose on November 8. But by refusing again Thursday to promise outright that he will abide by the results of the election, Trump kept alive a worrying conspiracy theory that his underdog candidacy could be defeated by below-board behavior.
The remarks came after Trump took intense fire from Republicans and Democrats alike for saying "I will look at it at the time," when asked if he would concede the election should he lose on November 8.
"I will keep you in suspense," he added during the debate.
Trump also said Thursday that he was only refusing to make a blanket statement concerning the results of the election because he wants "fairness during the election."
"This is having nothing to do with me but having to do with the future of our country. We have to have fairness," he said.
Trump, who has spent weeks calling the election "rigged" and suggesting to his supporters the presidency could be stolen from them, sought to compare his situation to the 2000 election, when Al Gore sought a recount in several counties after the results of the election in Florida were very tight.
"If Al Gore or George Bush had agreed three weeks before the election to concede results and waived their right to a legal challenge or a recount then there would be no Supreme Court case," Trump said of the ensuing legal process following the contested result of the 2000 election.
But neither Bush nor Gore raised concerns about the legitimacy of the electoral process, neither before nor after Election Day. And a day after the Supreme Court ruled, Gore called Bush to concede.
Donald Trump: 'I will totally accept' election results 'if I win'
Delaware, Ohio (CNN) — Donald Trump said Thursday he will accept the results of next month's election if he wins, a caveat that threatens to cast unprecedented doubt on the legitimacy of the electoral process.
Trump offered a stunning declaration during the final presidential debate that he might not accept the results of next month's election. In his first speech since the debate, Trump seemed to simultaneously double down on the stance he articulated Wednesday night while also trying to clean it up.
Trump argued forcefully during a rally here that he was being asked to "waive" his right to contest the election after critics slammed him for refusing to pledge to accept the results of the election the previous night during the final presidential debate.
"I would like to promise and pledge to all of my voters and supporters and to all of the people of the United States that I will totally accept the results of this great and historic presidential election, if I win," Trump told supporters here in his first comments since the final debate.
After raising concerns about voter fraud -- instances of which are extremely rare -- Trump also pledged to accept "a clear election result."
"Of course, I would accept a clear election result, but I would also reserve my right to contest or file a legal challenge in the case of a questionable result," Trump said. "And always, I will follow and abide by all of the rules and traditions of all of the many candidates who have come before me. Always."
Trump's remarks Thursday appeared aimed at quelling the outrage he sparked the previous night as Republicans and Democrats alike balked at Trump's response that "I will look at it at the time," when asked if he would concede the election should he lose on November 8. But by refusing again Thursday to promise outright that he will abide by the results of the election, Trump kept alive a worrying conspiracy theory that his underdog candidacy could be defeated by below-board behavior.
The remarks came after Trump took intense fire from Republicans and Democrats alike for saying "I will look at it at the time," when asked if he would concede the election should he lose on November 8.
"I will keep you in suspense," he added during the debate.
Trump also said Thursday that he was only refusing to make a blanket statement concerning the results of the election because he wants "fairness during the election."
"This is having nothing to do with me but having to do with the future of our country. We have to have fairness," he said.
Trump, who has spent weeks calling the election "rigged" and suggesting to his supporters the presidency could be stolen from them, sought to compare his situation to the 2000 election, when Al Gore sought a recount in several counties after the results of the election in Florida were very tight.
"If Al Gore or George Bush had agreed three weeks before the election to concede results and waived their right to a legal challenge or a recount then there would be no Supreme Court case," Trump said of the ensuing legal process following the contested result of the 2000 election.
But neither Bush nor Gore raised concerns about the legitimacy of the electoral process, neither before nor after Election Day. And a day after the Supreme Court ruled, Gore called Bush to concede.
Oct 20, 2016 14:41:09 #
Progressive One wrote:
**This guy is the gift that keeps on giving-His OP... (show quote)
You know what? I'm having a blast. I see one of your posts, and I just skip on to the next one. I don't even glance at it, let alone read it. And you know what? I don't feel like I'm missing anything at all. It's liberating. I have banished you, and your opinions, to oblivion. Never to be seen again. Keep posting your ignorant, hateful garbage. I'll keep ignoring it.
Oct 20, 2016 14:42:47 #
Thanks Tradition but I do not need to watch . I know . I spent 6 years working at the Pentagon in Very Highly Secure Data Communications.
Actually the highest .
I know that there is no way she could have not known. She bypassed The Sate Department security protocol's purposely . Her and her boss
were clandistantly bypassing our structured governmental Depts. that are filled with legit career civil servants. Doing so for their own anti establishment
operations. I.E. , doing their dirty deals in the dark .
Actually the highest .
I know that there is no way she could have not known. She bypassed The Sate Department security protocol's purposely . Her and her boss
were clandistantly bypassing our structured governmental Depts. that are filled with legit career civil servants. Doing so for their own anti establishment
operations. I.E. , doing their dirty deals in the dark .
Tradition wrote:
__________________________________________________... (show quote)
Oct 20, 2016 14:46:42 #
Hmm...I wonder if people realize that when they read my name alone and tell me that they are ignoring me that it constitutes a small degree of acknowledgement of my presence? If nothing else, it is not necessarily ignoring me in the true sense of totality of what it actually means to ignore. Oh well...I don't have time to examine the inner workings of the feeble minded.....hilarious.........indeed.........
Oct 20, 2016 15:23:42 #
Progressive One wrote:
Hmm...I wonder if people realize that when they read my name alone and tell me that they are ignoring me that it constitutes a small degree of acknowledgement of my presence? If nothing else, it is not necessarily ignoring me in the true sense of totality of what it actually means to ignore. Oh well...I don't have time to examine the inner workings of the feeble minded.....hilarious.........indeed.........
Pretty sure it's far more simple, you being a poor dumb spook is the heart of the matter.........yes, you are quite comical, that's why we just laugh at you fool.......homey da klown.
Oct 20, 2016 15:35:07 #
Weewillynobeerspilly wrote:
Pretty sure it's far more simple, you being a poor dumb spook is the heart of the matter.........yes, you are quite comical, that's why we just laugh at you fool.......homey da klown.
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.