2016 U.S. Presidential Race Megathread Mark 2.

Ludo

oik wrote: »

He needs to talk to undecided voters about the issues and basically pretend that Hillary Clinton isn't there by ignoring all her little jabs.

How can there be any undecided voters left? In previous elections I could understand it but not in this one.

TheDoctor

cowboyBuilder wrote: »

Black Swan wrote: »

I've only noticed his sniffing during presidential debates #1 and #2. I had a friend that was a coke user, and he sniffed just like that after a snort.

could be, Colombian flu they call it ?

Anyway, Trump did pretty well considering the mess he's in ... too little too late though, unless something really crushing is unveiled on Hillary - which the MSM will ignore anyway, so congrats Hillary ..

He needs to get something in the next two weeks before debate 3 so he can hammer her on stage or else she's home free.

About half way through last night. Fairly even so far.

RobertKK

Feline Grabber wrote: »

Bill is really in trouble for his third term.

It will be a third term for both in the White House.
Hillary didn't deny that she laughed at getting a 12 year old's rapist off.
Hillary didn't deny she went after women whom Bill sexually assaulted.

RobertKK

Ludo wrote: »

How can there be any undecided voters left? In previous elections I could understand it but not in this one.

Both of the main candidates are severely disliked by many.

daithi7

God help us, is this the best the USA can offer to run America, and hence the western world!?

Jesus Wept!!

I watched the first 25 minutes of the debate this am on tv, I have never seen such an angry, ill informed, ignorant, divisive, bad tempered presidential/pm debate ever. It was a terrible debate, with both speakers bypassing the crowd's genuine questions to get personal and try to point score.. Sure Trump is an absolute disgrace, but Hillary Clinton should be able to rise above it, if she was any sort of decent stateswoman. Both are dire candidates. Obama and Romney were total class versus these personal attacking members of an ego driven, bickering, entitled, spoilt sub-section of a section of US society. They are obnoxious, both of them. Hillary is probably the lessor of two evils, but the jury is out on that tbh.

P.s. she looks to me like a cold, cynical, overly ambitious political animal, with no personal charisma, who is probably as corrupt as Charlie Haughey was in his heyday. Trump is an ego driven, entitled, gutter snipe, a bully with no integrity whatsoever with a (very) dangerous temperament, angry demeanour & backing. Yuk!!

P.p.s. spare a thought for Mitt Romney. He ran against the classiest candidate for president for many, many years and did well considering. He would win against either of these candidates hands down imho, and probably be a better president than either of them also.

Pro Hoc Vice

RobertKK wrote: »

It will be a third term for both in the White House.
Hillary didn't deny that she laughed at getting a 12 year old's rapist off.
Hillary didn't deny she went after women whom Bill sexually assaulted.

she gave a laugh about the lie detector results, the victim was 12 not the rapist.

RobertKK

Pro Hoc Vice wrote: »

she gave a laugh about the lie detector results, the victim was 12 not the rapist.

Never posted the rapist was 12.

Silence or a laugh is not a denial or a defense.

alastair

RobertKK wrote: »

Silence or a laugh is not a denial or a defense.

Given that, factually, she didn't laugh about getting a defendant off a rape charge, it really doesn't matter that she didn't isolate that claim from the rest of Trump's grab bag of accusations. She said clearly in the debate that Trump was making false claims.

Akrasia

I thought Trump won the debate by a wide margin.

Trump made a huge effort to call out to Bernie supporters and to remind them of how poorly he was treated in the primaries and this is still an open wound within the democratic party. It might not get those voters on his side, but it might cause them to stay at home or support a 3rd party.

Trump successfully dodged the groping controversy by dragging clinton into the gutter with him by referring to her treatment of the women who Bill had affairs with. To defuse these allegations, he just needs to convince voters that Clinton is no better than he is.

It's hard to know what goes on in the mind of undecided voters this late in the campaign, but its likely that many of them are looking for reasons to vote for Trump and by attacking Clinton and dragging her down to his level, he might do enough to get them to support him.

Trump also got the most cheers and the most laughs from the audience, which subconsciously gives the impression that he won the debate and has more support. Clinton was uninspiring, she said nothing that would convince anyone who isn't already a Clinton voter.

In terms of the results of the election, I don't think one debate performance will be enough to swing it, especially if there are more videos waiting to be released that show Trump as a sexual predator.

Akrasia

alastair wrote: »

Given that, factually, she didn't laugh about getting a defendant off a rape charge, it really doesn't matter that she didn't isolate that claim from the rest of Trump's grab bag of accusations. She said clearly in the debate that Trump was making false claims.

Unfortunately, in a debate format, just declaring your opponent a liar isn't enough to debunk false claims.

It's a huge flaw with the format, because whoever is prepared to lie and make up 'facts' will win the debate unless the opponent or moderator is able to successfully disprove them. Clinton said Trump lied, but she never showed how he was lying.

alastair

Akrasia wrote: »

Unfortunately, in a debate format, just declaring your opponent a liar isn't enough to debunk false claims.

It's a huge flaw with the format, because whoever is prepared to lie and make up 'facts' will win the debate unless the opponent or moderator is able to successfully disprove them. Clinton said Trump lied, but she never showed how he was lying.

No different to any other disputed claim from either side. The debunking happens offstage.

Ludo

RobertKK wrote: »

Both of the main candidates are severely disliked by many.

I get that...but how on earth can anyone not know which they dislike less. Not like people haven't had years to make up their minds. I really don't think there are any truly undecideds now. Maybe a few attention seekers who are pretending to be undecided.

RobertKK

alastair wrote: »

Given that, factually, she didn't laugh about getting a defendant off a rape charge, it really doesn't matter that she didn't isolate that claim from the rest of Trump's grab bag of accusations. She said clearly in the debate that Trump was making false claims.

She was laughing about the case here.

RobertKK

Ludo wrote: »

I get that...but how on earth can anyone not know which they dislike less. Not like people haven't had years to make up their minds. I really don't think there are any truly undecideds now. Maybe a few attention seekers who are pretending to be undecided.

I think as people find out more and more about each, it ebbs and flows for some who are the fence who is worse.
We will have more stuff that will show what a horrible man Trump is, we will have more what a terrible woman Hillary is.
Some will wait and see who in their opinion is the worst, as we haven't seen the worse allegations or whatever that will be fired at each other yet.

RobertKK

Akrasia wrote: »

Unfortunately, in a debate format, just declaring your opponent a liar isn't enough to debunk false claims.

It's a huge flaw with the format, because whoever is prepared to lie and make up 'facts' will win the debate unless the opponent or moderator is able to successfully disprove them. Clinton said Trump lied, but she never showed how he was lying.

Yeah, when the person saying the other is telling lies and the person saying that has trust issues with the public, it weakens the argument it is a lie if you don't bother showing why it is a lie.

Black Swan

TheDoctor wrote: »

He needs to get something in the next two weeks before debate 3 so he can hammer her on stage or else she's home free.

The 3rd presidential debate is scheduled for 19 October 2016 at 6PM Pacific time, and held at University of Nevada Los Vegas. Methinks that the 3rd debate will be too late to make a difference this presidential election cycle. The days between now and the 3rd debate may allow for a bit of movement for undecided or independents, but I doubt a massive shift will occur for either candidate, provided there is not a massive political bombshell yet to be dropped; e.g., if a 2nd Trump groping (or worse) film appeared which Bill Pruitt claims exists. Plus, Americans are voting now, millions not waiting for 8 November 2016:

ABC: "More than 45 million people are expected to vote before Election Day, 8 November 2016, either by mail-in ballots or going to early-voting stations. Advance voting is underway in nearly half the 50 states, with more to follow."

Mr.Micro

Neither candidate has any credibility. It's like an old grandad sniping at old grandma, bitter and nasty. Nothing of substance from either. I am not sure America is ready for what he will bring to the table, he is so volatile that he makes George Bush look tame. Nothing deflates his ego and the fact that he has no answers or specifics to any question appears to mean nothing.

Nody

daithi7 wrote: »

God help us, is this the best the USA can offer to run America, and hence the western world!?

That's the thing though; if the Republican party had put up pretty much anyone who could pretend to be even partially centric they would sweep against Hillary easily inc. someone as boring as Jeb Bush. It's to the point you would start to think someone bribed Trump to ruin it for the Republicans (except Trump would have bragged about it already how he got paid to run for election).

RobertKK wrote: »

Hillary didn't deny that she laughed at getting a 12 year old's rapist off.
Hillary didn't deny she went after women whom Bill sexually assaulted.

Nor has she denied to be the leader of the KKK or having been abducted by Aliens; so that must be true as well. However unlike Trump she's not sued in court over multiple cases of assaulting women which does give a bit of a reality check on things.

I thought someone said it best, the Clintons have made shady deals in the grey zone but Trump is outright breaking the law (see for example the use of his own charity fund to pay off legal cases, buying pictures of himself to put in his own buildings, donating to people claiming it was his donation etc.).

alastair

RobertKK wrote: »

She was laughing about the case here.

Was she laughing about getting a rapist off, as you claimed?

Nope.

martingriff

Voting for these 2 is do you want to get hit in the face or stomach. Both are terrible

RobertKK

Nody wrote: »

Nor has she denied to be the leader of the KKK or having been abducted by Aliens; so that must be true as well. However unlike Trump she's not sued in court over multiple cases of assaulting women which does give a bit of a reality check on things.

I thought someone said it best, the Clintons have made shady deals in the grey zone but Trump is outright breaking the law (see for example the use of his own charity fund to pay off legal cases, buying pictures of himself to put in his own buildings, donating to people claiming it was his donation etc.).

I must have missed where Trump said shew as the leader of the KKK.
Hillary just has women who say she went after them aggressively when they said Bill sexually assaulted them.
This despite Hillary saying women should be believed.

Do you think if you are served a subpoena for your emails and other information, that it is legal to destroy it?
Do you think it is not a conflict of interests for her husband to get on the plane with a person responsible for making a judgment on Hillary and saying it was to talk about golf, when it was days before the decision. Just under 40 minutes talking about golf???

Maybe they should all be in jail, but this Hillary has done nothing wrong, is looking at the Hillary and the Clintons with a blindfold on.

RobertKK

alastair wrote: »

Was she laughing about getting a rapist off, as you claimed?

Nope.

Maybe you laugh more than once while discussing a case about the rape of a 12 year old child, like Hillary does, I seriously doubt you would be looking for humour in such a discussion, so I don't know why you would want to defend her.

B0jangles

Hey Robert, you keep saying that both candidates are as bad as each other but is there some reason you barely ever say anything negative about Trump but will repost virtually any conspiracy theory about Clinton?

Inquiring minds want to know.

cowboyBuilder

B0jangles wrote: »

Hey Robert, you keep saying that both candidates are as bad as each other but is there some reason you barely ever say anything negative about Trump but will repost virtually any conspiracy theory about Clinton?

Inquiring minds want to know.

It's the same with me, Trump is a twit, but Hillary is worse - pure evil in fact.

Brian?

cowboyBuilder wrote: »

It's the same with me, Trump is a twit, but Hillary is worse - pure evil in fact.

By no objective measure is Clinton worse than Trump.

RobertKK

B0jangles wrote: »

Hey Robert, you keep saying that both candidates are as bad as each other but is there some reason you barely ever say anything negative about Trump but will repost virtually any conspiracy theory about Clinton?

Inquiring minds want to know.

Inquiring minds might know I think more people will die under a Clinton presidency.
It was in a Russian newspaper that if Clinton was to go after Assad and attack his forces, that it could lead to war between Russia and the US, given how integrated Russia is with Assad.
Her international track record is not good.

Clinton was using Russia to attack Trump, Trump did say a very valid thing about that as in, wouldn't it be better having good relations with Russia and fighting ISIS together than having bad relations with Russia, Trump also was right about the people Hillary and some other idiots in the west support and want to arm in Syria.
His comments about women are indefensible, he says other things that are very questionable.
Thing is I could never vote for Hillary, both lie but Hillary lies about lies and then lies more. I mean she has a public policy and behind closed doors a private policy, last night she could not tell the public what she told Goldman Sachs that her no fly zone which she mentioned in the debate and again failed to mention that her plan comes with thousands of troops being sent to Syria.

The thing is, if you watch the debate after reading what Wikileaks released, you could see Hillary was telling lies or leaving out controversial information that she told a bank, as if the people should not know - given she refused to release the speeches.

I don't think either are fit to be president, but for me, Clinton is the more dangerous politician despite Trump's lack of experience, I say this given in 2003 before he invasion Trump said Iraq was a problem, but the biggest problem the US needed to deal with over Iraq was the US economy.
He has spoken in a far less hawkish way than Hillary about international issues which is why I attack Hillary far more as I believe she is far more dangerous.
I just see more human misery under Clinton.

Peist2007

Brian? wrote: »

By no objective measure is Clinton worse than Trump.

The "did Clinton / Trump ever have an influence in completely destroying sovereign nation(s) in the Middle East" objective measure says hi.

oscarBravo

Peist2007 wrote: »

The "did Clinton / Trump ever have an influence in completely destroying sovereign nation(s) in the Middle East" objective measure says hi.

That'll be the "it's safe to let a toddler drive a car because the toddler has never crashed a car before" measure?

Brian?

Peist2007 wrote: »

The "did Clinton / Trump ever have an influence in completely destroying sovereign nation(s) in the Middle East" objective measure says hi.

Could you perhaps decode that for me?

Is this the "Clinton is to blame for the mess in the middle east and Trump is not" argument?

It's a nonsense argument, Trump has never made a foreign policy blunder because he's never held political office in his life. We can only judge him on what he says, not what he's done. He has stated repeatedly that he would bomb the **** out of ISIS, targeting their wives and children. He's a narcissist, a blow hard and a bigot who advocates warm crimes.

Peist2007

RobertKK wrote: »

He has spoken in a far less hawkish way than Hillary about international issues which is why I attack Hillary far more as I believe she is far more dangerous.
I just see more human misery under Clinton.

This is why i would prefer Trump to Clinton every day of the week. Hillary is far more dangerous than Trump. She has shown this in the past when she held office. She has a track record. Trump dies not and it is clear that Trump is a chancer with no intent of doing anything beyond enjoying being President - hence offering Kasich controls as VP over foreign and domestic policy.

The fact that Clinton cannot shoot down in a 90 minute debate a man who is clearly making it up as he goes along is very illuminating. You think this woman could deal with Putin or Lavrov?!

So, in short, both are crap candidates but one is less likely to do something insane with regard to Russia. No matter what CNN tells you.

Brian?

RobertKK wrote: »

Inquiring minds might know I think more people will die under a Clinton presidency.
It was in a Russian newspaper that if Clinton was to go after Assad and attack his forces, that it could lead to war between Russia and the US, given how integrated Russia is with Assad.
Her international track record is not good.

Clinton was using Russia to attack Trump, Trump did say a very valid thing about that as in, wouldn't it be better having good relations with Russia and fighting ISIS together than having bad relations with Russia, Trump also was right about the people Hillary and some other idiots in the west support and want to arm in Syria.
His comments about women are indefensible, he says other things that are very questionable.
Thing is I could never vote for Hillary, both lie but Hillary lies about lies and then lies more. I mean she has a public policy and behind closed doors a private policy, last night she could not tell the public what she told Goldman Sachs that her no fly zone which she mentioned in the debate and again failed to mention that her plan comes with thousands of troops being sent to Syria.

The thing is, if you watch the debate after reading what Wikileaks released, you could see Hillary was telling lies or leaving out controversial information that she told a bank, as if the people should not know - given she refused to release the speeches.

I don't think either are fit to be president, but for me, Clinton is the more dangerous politician despite Trump's lack of experience, I say this given in 2003 before he invasion Trump said Iraq was a problem, but the biggest problem the US needed to deal with over Iraq was the US economy.
He has spoken in a far less hawkish way than Hillary about international issues which is why I attack Hillary far more as I believe she is far more dangerous.
I just see more human misery under Clinton.

You're so blinded by your hatred for Clinton you are willing to over look Trump's hawkish statements. He's advocating war crimes; deliberately targeting families and using torture in interrogation.

Peist2007

oscarBravo wrote: »

That'll be the "it's safe to let a toddler drive a car because the toddler has never crashed a car before" measure?

No it would be one of the toddlers has already had a go and was a complete psycho so why immediately want to let him at it again measure.

Your logic is terrible

Peist2007

Brian? wrote: »

Could you perhaps decode that for me?

Is this the "Clinton is to blame for the mess in the middle east and Trump is not" argument?

It's a nonsense argument, Trump has never made a foreign policy blunder because he's never held political office in his life. We can only judge him on what he says, not what he's done. He has stated repeatedly that he would bomb the **** out of ISIS, targeting their wives and children. He's a narcissist, a blow hard and a bigot who advocates warm crimes.

You ask for an explanation yet cannot resist coming up with your own. And are still incorrect.

Amerika

Brian? wrote: »

By no objective measure is Clinton worse than Trump.

By most reasonable objectives measures Clinton is much worse than Trump. Hillary’s economic policy of trickle down government with more taxes, more spending and more regulations will only serve to hurt the economy. Simple void-of-thought emotions, though, she probably wins on points.

RobertKK

Brian? wrote: »

You're so blinded by your hatred for Clinton you are willing to over look Trump's hawkish statements. He's advocating war crimes; deliberately targeting families and using torture in interrogation.

I dealt with this before in this thread.

The drones wars, look at who is being killed and how people who are unknown get classified as terrorists, look at how on day three of Obama's presidency he gave the go ahead to a drone strike that killed 4 to 5 children, were they terrorists?
There are lots of double standards in this debate.

Peist2007

RobertKK wrote: »

I dealt with this before in this thread.

The drones wars, look at who is being killed and how people who are unknown get classified as terrorists, look at how on day three of Obama's presidency he gave the go ahead to a drone strike that killed 4 to 5 children, were they terrorists?
There are lots of double standards in this debate.

People in here pretending to care about others when it suits the pro-Clinton argument.

How is Libya these days guys? Women and children being massacred at the behest of your candidate not as bad as a fool making lewd comments? Strange times we live in.

Brian?

RobertKK wrote: »

I dealt with this before in this thread.

The drones wars, look at who is being killed and how people who are unknown get classified as terrorists, look at how on day three of Obama's presidency he gave the go ahead to a drone strike that killed 4 to 5 children, were they terrorists?
There are lots of double standards in this debate.

You've dealt with it poorly. Trump maintains that Obama's attempts to deal with ISIS are weak. So why do you think he's less likely to use military action ?

K-9

Well Trump couldn't even answer the questions about the tapes without saying we're going to beat ISIS. Whoever wins is going to be terrible for foreign policy and I'd expect more Aleppo's.

The funniest part of the night was Trump having a go at Anderson Cooper for not asking a question, just after that question had been asked! It just shows you he'll just keep throwing it out there no matter what. Hillary didn't give the answer I want to hear so it must be bias.

Brian?

Amerika wrote: »

By most reasonable objectives measures Clinton is much worse than Trump. Hillary’s economic policy of trickle down government with more taxes, more spending and more regulations will only serve to hurt the economy. Simple void-of-thought emotions, though, she probably wins on points.

Those are not Hillary's policies. They're talking points Trump supporters like to throw out.

Brian?

Peist2007 wrote: »

You ask for an explanation yet cannot resist coming up with your own. And are still incorrect.

So what were you asking?

Christy42

Peist2007 wrote: »

People in here pretending to care about others when it suits the pro-Clinton argument.

How is Libya these days guys? Women and children being massacred at the behest of your candidate not as bad as a fool making lewd comments? Strange times we live in.

Do you feel we should "bomb the **** out of them" to sort it out? Also by waterboarding anyone we suspect of wrong doing there.

Is that the solution you want because it is the solution your candidate seems to be advocating.

Of course because Trump has never held office and you can assume he was lying during these statements you can just assume he will take the foreign policies you want while this assumption has 0 basis in fact.

Peist2007

Brian? wrote: »

You've dealt with it poorly. Trump maintains that Obama's attempts to deal with ISIS are weak. So why do you think he's less likely to use military action ?

By talking to Russia rather than squaring off and stopping arming headchopping rebels who will do nothing but bring instability to Syria followed by the region? That is how you hurt ISIS and it seems Trump gets that. Clinton certainly doesnt.

Any other blindingly obvious things you are having difficulty with?

Peist2007

Brian? wrote: »

So what were you asking?

I didnt ask you anything. Scroll up a page and stop wasting people's time.

Peist2007

Christy42 wrote: »

Do you feel we should "bomb the **** out of them" to sort it out? Also by waterboarding anyone we suspect of wrong doing there.

Is that the solution you want because it is the solution your candidate seems to be advocating.

Of course because Trump has never held office and you can assume he was lying during these statements you can just assume he will take the foreign policies you want while this assumption has 0 basis in fact.

No, of course not. Trump wants to talk to Russia and this is the only way to solve matters. Trump is speaking to the base republican electorate as he has done from the start. There is only one of these candidates who have supported foreign military action in an official capacity. And there was plenty of waterboarding going on in her time too. Care to defend that?

aloyisious

RobertKK wrote: »

I must have missed where Trump said shew as the leader of the KKK.
Hillary just has women who say she went after them aggressively when they said Bill sexually assaulted them.
This despite Hillary saying women should be believed.

Do you think if you are served a subpoena for your emails and other information, that it is legal to destroy it?
Do you think it is not a conflict of interests for her husband to get on the plane with a person responsible for making a judgment on Hillary and saying it was to talk about golf, when it was days before the decision. Just under 40 minutes talking about golf???

Maybe they should all be in jail, but this Hillary has done nothing wrong, is looking at the Hillary and the Clintons with a blindfold on.

This might answer the question about the Emails and the subpoena.... https://www.google.ie/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=3&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwidz67OuNDPAhUHDMAKHZGYD48QFggrMAI&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.huffingtonpost.com%2F2015%2F07%2F08%2Fhillary-clinton-emails-_n_7756106.html&usg=AFQjCNHt641wCzv_cFWHUij5MilWU_5_wg

Amerika

Brian? wrote: »

Those are not Hillary's policies. They're talking points Trump supporters like to throw out.

Sure they're her policies. She intends to institute more taxes, more spending and more regulations will only serve to hurt the economy

K-9

Peist2007 wrote: »

By talking to Russia rather than squaring off and stopping arming headchopping rebels who will do nothing but bring instability to Syria followed by the region? That is how you hurt ISIS and it seems Trump gets that. Clinton certainly doesnt.

Any other blindingly obvious things you are having difficulty with?

Which still leaves Assad and Syria in a mess.

Brian?

Amerika wrote: »

Sure they're her policies. She intends to institute more taxes, more spending and more regulations will only serve to hurt the economy

Vast over simplification. But it's nice to have a debate about policy and the issues instead of arguing who's the least hawkish or insulting.

Hillary has said many times, including last night that no one earning less than 250k would see a tax increase. And increases would be staggered to hit those earning 5m more than anyone else.

As has also been pointed out here repeatedly, Hillary's economic policy will create less deficit spending than Trumps's.

Amerika

K-9 wrote: »

Well Trump couldn't even answer the questions about the tapes without saying we're going to beat ISIS. Whoever wins is going to be terrible for foreign policy and I'd expect more Aleppo's.

The funniest part of the night was Trump having a go at Anderson Cooper for not asking a question, just after that question had been asked! It just shows you he'll just keep throwing it out there no matter what. Hillary didn't give the answer I want to hear so it must be bias.

RADDATZ: And, Secretary Clinton, I do want to follow up on e- mails. You’ve said your handing of your e-mails was a mistake. You disagreed with FBI Director James Comey, calling your handling of classified information, quote, “extremely careless.” The FBI said that there were 110 classified e-mails that were exchanged, eight of which were top secret, and that it was possible hostile actors did gain access to those e-mails. You don’t call that extremely careless?

CLINTON: Well, Martha, first, let me say — and I’ve said before, but I’ll repeat it, because I want everyone to hear it — that was a mistake, and I take responsibility for using a personal e-mail account. Obviously, if I were to do it over again, I would not. I’m not making any excuses. It was a mistake. And I am very sorry about that.

But I think it’s also important to point out where there are some misleading accusations from critics and others. After a year-long investigation, there is no evidence that anyone hacked the server I was using and there is no evidence that anyone can point to at all — anyone who says otherwise has no basis — that any classified material ended up in the wrong hands.

I take classified materials very seriously and always have. When I was on the Senate Armed Services Committee, I was privy to a lot of classified material. Obviously, as secretary of state, I had some of the most important secrets that we possess, such as going after bin Laden. So I am very committed to taking classified information seriously. And as I said, there is no evidence that any classified information ended up in the wrong hands.

RADDATZ: OK, we’re going to move on… (No challenges, no follow-up, no fact-checking, no ma’am... Because ‘I’m With Her.’ Oh thank you Hillary, I'm sooooo very sorry I had to even bring it up.)

aloyisious

There were two things said last night at the end of the question and answer "debate". The first was Donald's statement to Hillary that he, when he became President, was going to instruct his AG to investigate her. This was after he told her, his presidential-election opponent, that he intended to jail her. The second was her compliment to Don on his children and his response wondering how she meant it.

For the first, I'm wondering how basically what was a promise by Don to use the highest office in the land to use his personal appointee to the highest law enforcement office in the land for political/personal animus reasons would be seen by thinking US citizens? Should all his Republican Party opponents start looking over their shoulder and begin deleting en mass? Edit...... Don also said during the debate that there were 39 thousand emails deleted by Hillary and I think he also said 33 thousand earlier to that. Has there been a new batch of deleted emails uncovered?

For the second, I can see Don is not such a bozo that he that he was able to see Hillary's compliment to his children could have been a subtle "we are all women" message to his daughters in the audience, following of from the release of the tapes.