We're gonna slap on the sneakers and filibuster everything.

(10-19-2016 10:09 PM)DefCONNOne Wrote:  

(10-19-2016 10:05 PM)Machiavelli Wrote:  This is what winning a debate looks like.

https://electionbettingodds.com/

How do you know your side's losing? when you trot an election betting odds site.

Betting site odds are an interesting way to get a glimpse of where an election is at based on gamblers' feels for the way a race is trending but hardly scientific.

(10-19-2016 10:05 PM)Machiavelli Wrote:  This is what winning a debate looks like.

https://electionbettingodds.com/

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/...68196.html

Check this read out on betting and correlation with Trump win to brexit

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Bill Burton getting called out for dodging pay to play with the Clinton Foundation.
The Clintons awarded contracts to rebuild Haiti to foundation donors.

Sorry I'm late to the party and haven't read a lick of this thread as of yet but.....

My biggest take away is that Hillary's whole plan for Syria and Allepo is to work with Russia. Lol!
Now I know that she is more than willing to sell them all or most of our Uranium reserves but...... neither Obama or Clinton have even a "decent" relationship with Putin. If their plan is sound, then they need a Donald Trump to make it work. Iran has made the United States a joke.
Thank you Obama and Hillary!

I find it really ironic that in the last presidential election Obama was saying not to worry about the Russians (hello 80s are calling) and in this one its 180 degrees from that position with Hillary.

(10-19-2016 10:14 PM)Dasville Wrote:  Sorry I'm late to the party and haven't read a lick of this thread as of yet but.....

My biggest take away is that Hillary's whole plan for Syria and Allepo is to work with Russia. Lol!
Now I know that she is more than willing to sell them all or most of our Uranium reserves but...... neither Obama or Clinton have even a "decent" relationship with Putin. If their plan is sound, then they need a Donald Trump to make it work. Iran has made the United States a joke.
Thank you Obama and Hillary!

In the end Mitt Romney was right.
The 80s are calling and the Russians are the biggest threat to the US so says Hillary Clinton.

(10-19-2016 10:14 PM)DFWMINER Wrote:  I find it really ironic that in the last presidential election Obama was saying not to worry about the Russians (hello 80s are calling) and in this one its 180 degrees from that position with Hillary.

I bet Romney is at home saying...told ya so.

(10-19-2016 09:57 PM)HarmonOliphantOberlanderDevine Wrote:  

(10-19-2016 09:55 PM)gobluebigjon Wrote:  

(10-19-2016 09:24 PM)CameramanJ Wrote:  Amidst all this, I can't help but think about how ol' Jeb or Kasich would have performed in the final round of this election season.

Hell. Even Rand.

They would have all won in a landslide imo

Jeb and Kasich would be Romney 2.0. Establishment candidates.

While I can't disagree they would have been facing a candidate who was easy to beat...obama wasn't, as much as I havent cared for him. I truly believe any of the of the above would have won handily.

My impressions of the debate as an objective observer. I read no posts in this thread nor listened to any of the talking heads trying to tell me what I saw. My thoughts.

1) This was by far the best debate performance Trump gave out of the 3. IMHO, he won this debate by a fair margin. I also don't think that Hillary tried to hard. IMHO, she played the prevent D by defending against Trump attacks while getting her zingers in when the opportunities arose.

2) Trump had a good and coherent response to the "dismantling NATO" accusation. I know he's responded very similarly in past debates - especially in the first part of the first debate where he was winning - but this time it seemed to come together better. IMHO, he masterfully tied in the national debt to this and several other themes throughout the night.

3) Hillary still comes across as the more knowledgeable one about foreign policy. I know Trump likes to hang ISIS around Clinton's and Obama's necks - and he is probably correct on those scores. However, when you do that there is nothing preventing others from accusing GHWB/Reagan from creating Bin Laden and al qaeda or even creating the strong man known as Saddam Hussein. The same can be said about various Latin American despots as well. Trump did not impress me on his Syria position. It seemed better vs other times, but he said little about what he would do and did nothing but blasted Clinton on her role. Trump's comments about working with the Russians to fight ISIS is naive. Putin wants another cold war with the U.S. IMHO, Trump can't see it.

4) Wikileaks and the Russian connection - Clinton did a good job here tying them together and putting Trump on the spot about whether he'd disavow Putin from hacking U.S. computer systems (private and gov't). If in fact several intelligence agencies have corroborated Russia as the hackers, then it's NOT a good thing - even if it hit the DNC. We know the RNC has a lot of its own sins too.

5) Clinton did a poor job handling the email scandal and the FBI investigations. We know she lied to the FBI, and when Trump discussed how others were indicted just for lying to the FBI plus mishandling intelligence, it's not a good look. All she did was smile and ignored it. She did say the FBI exonerated her; however, she failed to address the improprieties associated with the investigation - especially Bill having a private one on one with the AG.

6a) Economy - Both did poor on this IMHO. Clinton hit the talking points needed by her base where she's showing love to Bernie and Obama's buzzwords about "pay their fair share", etc... We know this is not what she'll do in office, because in reality she disagrees with both. Then she threw the red meat to the base about it being Bush's fault???? Give me a fvcking break. Carter was a fvcking train wreck with the economy due to stagflation. Reagan turned things around between years 3 and 4. Trying to excuse Obama's poor performance on the economy was terrible and I think it won't play with the people. She sucked there. I will say that she stated some additional specifics aside from tax policy here that should resonate. Keynesian stimulus (what Obama should have really done instead of diddling with Obamacare and propping up municipal gov'ts) plus job training for the future is strong answers. Free public college not so much. People will see through this and know it's bunk - with Bernie backers the lone exception. Red meat for those guys clearly.

6b) Trump on the economy? This should have been in his wheelhouse. But just saying big tax cuts and companies will hire more workers? Does not guarantee jobs. One thing to keep in mind is that our unemployment numbers - or more specifically the low labor force participation numbers - are structural. You can't have this for 8 years and not have current businesses adapt to the new reality. Tax cuts alone and then saying "bigly" a few times isn't going to cut it. Structural unemployment will be fixed by new training programs and investment in new technologies. Clinton addresses that while Trump did not. But Clinton saying she'll grow the economy by going after the rich rings hollow. The majority of the rich will be small business owners who do their company taxes on their private tax returns. It's just not going to be effective. Trump very briefly mentioned repatriating money from overseas. I assume at a great discount. That's better than what Clinton had said - which was really nothing when it came to bringing the money back to America.

7) GDP growth - WTF is Trump talking about? He said 5 - 6% GDP growth per year is what he expects from his plans? Bullsh!t. That will never happen. More than likely you would overheat the economy and cause major inflation if you tried for those rates. Unlike China and India, our economy is mature. You can't grow at those rates. Either bullsh!t from him or he doesn't fully grasp macroeconomics.

8) National debt. They both suck. However, Trump's plans appear to suck a lot more regarding the debt. His response was that we would grow our way out of the debt. Hmmm... Doesn't give me good vibes when you hear about his growth projections on his plans. They're not sustainable. Nonpartisan groups analyzing both plans indicate Trump's plans are worse. So, I guess Clinton won that segment.

Overall, I thought Trump won. However, I think it's too little, too late. Ironically, the wikileaks steady drip drip drip appears to be putting the country into "wiki-fatigue". We're starting to become desensitized. IMHO, Assange's tactics are beginning to lose their effectiveness.

(10-19-2016 09:50 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(10-19-2016 09:48 PM)Machiavelli Wrote:  Holy Shnitke's??? Some of you actually believe he won that? You can't possibly be that naive?

Remember these guys said the "you should be in jail" comment from debate #2 was "the best singer in debate history"

Every pundit said that was his low point of the night.

So don't take the cons on here seriously

first of all, it's a "zinger". the best singer in debate history was probably stephen douglas, who reportedly had a lovely tenor voice.

but you're both getting sand in your gavinas over what is ultimately a retarded question -- which is only slightly less retarded than fussing over what has-been "pundits" think. punditry died the day pundits started reporting on what was trending on twitter. period. their corpses have been moldering in open graves ever since. ******* dinosaurs that just haven't fallen in to a tar pit yet.

anyway, "who won the debate" is irrelevant. "who captured more undecideds" is all that matters in any election at this point, and in this particular election cycle, if you're still undecided, you're either mentally defective or clinically indecisive. whichever the case, these people aren't normal.

I don't know what would capture the undecideds at this point . . . and neither does anyone else. but here's what they're NOT doing; closely scoring televised debates. so, quit fingerbanging yourself over the niceties of forensics; it's simply not relevant.

(10-19-2016 10:22 PM)miko33 Wrote:  My impressions of the debate as an objective observer. I read no posts in this thread nor listened to any of the talking heads trying to tell me what I saw. My thoughts.

1) This was by far the best debate performance Trump gave out of the 3. IMHO, he won this debate by a fair margin. I also don't think that Hillary tried to hard. IMHO, she played the prevent D by defending against Trump attacks while getting her zingers in when the opportunities arose.

2) Trump had a good and coherent response to the "dismantling NATO" accusation. I know he's responded very similarly in past debates - especially in the first part of the first debate where he was winning - but this time it seemed to come together better. IMHO, he masterfully tied in the national debt to this and several other themes throughout the night.

3) Hillary still comes across as the more knowledgeable one about foreign policy. I know Trump likes to hang ISIS around Clinton's and Obama's necks - and he is probably correct on those scores. However, when you do that there is nothing preventing others from accusing GHWB/Reagan from creating Bin Laden and al qaeda or even creating the strong man known as Saddam Hussein. The same can be said about various Latin American despots as well. Trump did not impress me on his Syria position. It seemed better vs other times, but he said little about what he would do and did nothing but blasted Clinton on her role. Trump's comments about working with the Russians to fight ISIS is naive. Putin wants another cold war with the U.S. IMHO, Trump can't see it.

4) Wikileaks and the Russian connection - Clinton did a good job here tying them together and putting Trump on the spot about whether he'd disavow Putin from hacking U.S. computer systems (private and gov't). If in fact several intelligence agencies have corroborated Russia as the hackers, then it's NOT a good thing - even if it hit the DNC. We know the RNC has a lot of its own sins too.

5) Clinton did a poor job handling the email scandal and the FBI investigations. We know she lied to the FBI, and when Trump discussed how others were indicted just for lying to the FBI plus mishandling intelligence, it's not a good look. All she did was smile and ignored it. She did say the FBI exonerated her; however, she failed to address the improprieties associated with the investigation - especially Bill having a private one on one with the AG.

6a) Economy - Both did poor on this IMHO. Clinton hit the talking points needed by her base where she's showing love to Bernie and Obama's buzzwords about "pay their fair share", etc... We know this is not what she'll do in office, because in reality she disagrees with both. Then she threw the red meat to the base about it being Bush's fault???? Give me a fvcking break. Carter was a fvcking train wreck with the economy due to stagflation. Reagan turned things around between years 3 and 4. Trying to excuse Obama's poor performance on the economy was terrible and I think it won't play with the people. She sucked there. I will say that she stated some additional specifics aside from tax policy here that should resonate. Keynesian stimulus (what Obama should have really done instead of diddling with Obamacare and propping up municipal gov'ts) plus job training for the future is strong answers. Free public college not so much. People will see through this and know it's bunk - with Bernie backers the lone exception. Red meat for those guys clearly.

6b) Trump on the economy? This should have been in his wheelhouse. But just saying big tax cuts and companies will hire more workers? Does not guarantee jobs. One thing to keep in mind is that our unemployment numbers - or more specifically the low labor force participation numbers - are structural. You can't have this for 8 years and not have current businesses adapt to the new reality. Tax cuts alone and then saying "bigly" a few times isn't going to cut it. Structural unemployment will be fixed by new training programs and investment in new technologies. Clinton addresses that while Trump did not. But Clinton saying she'll grow the economy by going after the rich rings hollow. The majority of the rich will be small business owners who do their company taxes on their private tax returns. It's just not going to be effective. Trump very briefly mentioned repatriating money from overseas. I assume at a great discount. That's better than what Clinton had said - which was really nothing when it came to bringing the money back to America.

7) GDP growth - WTF is Trump talking about? He said 5 - 6% GDP growth per year is what he expects from his plans? Bullsh!t. That will never happen. More than likely you would overheat the economy and cause major inflation if you tried for those rates. Unlike China and India, our economy is mature. You can't grow at those rates. Either bullsh!t from him or he doesn't fully grasp macroeconomics.

8) National debt. They both suck. However, Trump's plans appear to suck a lot more regarding the debt. His response was that we would grow our way out of the debt. Hmmm... Doesn't give me good vibes when you hear about his growth projections on his plans. They're not sustainable. Nonpartisan groups analyzing both plans indicate Trump's plans are worse. So, I guess Clinton won that segment.

Overall, I thought Trump won. However, I think it's too little, too late. Ironically, the wikileaks steady drip drip drip appears to be putting the country into "wiki-fatigue". We're starting to become desensitized. IMHO, Assange's tactics are beginning to lose their effectiveness.

Great analysis.
I think it's too little too late too.
Only a big October/November negative Hillary surprise could save him.

There's some very damaging stuff about the DNC in the Wiki emails but it takes too much effort for the American public to pull it together.

Project Veritas videos are pretty bad too but the MSM is steering clear of them.

New phone autocorrect is a *****. Changed "um" to "I'm" as well

Fact is Trump has only gone down in the polls since debate #2. The same poll that said Clinton won that debate as well

(10-19-2016 09:55 PM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  

(10-19-2016 09:51 PM)UTSAMarineVet09 Wrote:  

(10-19-2016 09:50 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  I frequently read these wrong, but I'm not seeing DJT making up any ground tonight. I think he lost (and I thought DJT won - barely - the 2nd debate) this debate.

Trump's body language was awful too. Don't discount that. And DJT's refusal to accept the election results is so bad, that it will destroy any potential gains anywhere in the debate.

I see you already got your talking points from NBC


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

MSM is all in the tank. All of them had the exact same immediate talking points post debate. Hillary was flustered the whole night, voters don't live in a bubble.

She did seem irritated the whole night.

(10-19-2016 10:28 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(10-19-2016 09:55 PM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  

(10-19-2016 09:51 PM)UTSAMarineVet09 Wrote:  

(10-19-2016 09:50 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  I frequently read these wrong, but I'm not seeing DJT making up any ground tonight. I think he lost (and I thought DJT won - barely - the 2nd debate) this debate.

Trump's body language was awful too. Don't discount that. And DJT's refusal to accept the election results is so bad, that it will destroy any potential gains anywhere in the debate.

I see you already got your talking points from NBC


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

MSM is all in the tank. All of them had the exact same immediate talking points post debate. Hillary was flustered the whole night, voters don't live in a bubble.

She did seem irritated the whole night.

She has trouble with controlling her subtle expressions when she is not talking. She tends to look haughty.

When an election like this has had so many illegal goings-on by the DNC why should Trump concede the election if he loses. It's obvious the Demons are not playing a legal and ethical game. By asking this stupid question that's just like asking for the tip by a waiter before they even serve your food.

Even horse face Meghan is against him and she WORKS at Fox.

(10-19-2016 10:11 PM)mptnstr@44 Wrote:  

(10-19-2016 10:09 PM)DefCONNOne Wrote:  

(10-19-2016 10:05 PM)Machiavelli Wrote:  This is what winning a debate looks like.

https://electionbettingodds.com/

How do you know your side's losing? when you trot an election betting odds site.

Betting site odds are an interesting way to get a glimpse of where an election is at based on gamblers' feels for the way a race is trending but hardly scientific.

My Dad's best friend from Kentucky figured he had a sure way to win betting sports. Take the points and bet against Kentucky.

Gamblers aren't necessarily rational. Odds just balance the bettors. Most of us couldn't believe Trump would win the nomination. There are still many in denial that he actually has some chance to win the election.

(10-19-2016 10:22 PM)miko33 Wrote:  My impressions of the debate as an objective observer. I read no posts in this thread nor listened to any of the talking heads trying to tell me what I saw. My thoughts.

1) This was by far the best debate performance Trump gave out of the 3. IMHO, he won this debate by a fair margin. I also don't think that Hillary tried to hard. IMHO, she played the prevent D by defending against Trump attacks while getting her zingers in when the opportunities arose.

2) Trump had a good and coherent response to the "dismantling NATO" accusation. I know he's responded very similarly in past debates - especially in the first part of the first debate where he was winning - but this time it seemed to come together better. IMHO, he masterfully tied in the national debt to this and several other themes throughout the night.

3) Hillary still comes across as the more knowledgeable one about foreign policy. I know Trump likes to hang ISIS around Clinton's and Obama's necks - and he is probably correct on those scores. However, when you do that there is nothing preventing others from accusing GHWB/Reagan from creating Bin Laden and al qaeda or even creating the strong man known as Saddam Hussein. The same can be said about various Latin American despots as well. Trump did not impress me on his Syria position. It seemed better vs other times, but he said little about what he would do and did nothing but blasted Clinton on her role. Trump's comments about working with the Russians to fight ISIS is naive. Putin wants another cold war with the U.S. IMHO, Trump can't see it.

4) Wikileaks and the Russian connection - Clinton did a good job here tying them together and putting Trump on the spot about whether he'd disavow Putin from hacking U.S. computer systems (private and gov't). If in fact several intelligence agencies have corroborated Russia as the hackers, then it's NOT a good thing - even if it hit the DNC. We know the RNC has a lot of its own sins too.

5) Clinton did a poor job handling the email scandal and the FBI investigations. We know she lied to the FBI, and when Trump discussed how others were indicted just for lying to the FBI plus mishandling intelligence, it's not a good look. All she did was smile and ignored it. She did say the FBI exonerated her; however, she failed to address the improprieties associated with the investigation - especially Bill having a private one on one with the AG.

6a) Economy - Both did poor on this IMHO. Clinton hit the talking points needed by her base where she's showing love to Bernie and Obama's buzzwords about "pay their fair share", etc... We know this is not what she'll do in office, because in reality she disagrees with both. Then she threw the red meat to the base about it being Bush's fault???? Give me a fvcking break. Carter was a fvcking train wreck with the economy due to stagflation. Reagan turned things around between years 3 and 4. Trying to excuse Obama's poor performance on the economy was terrible and I think it won't play with the people. She sucked there. I will say that she stated some additional specifics aside from tax policy here that should resonate. Keynesian stimulus (what Obama should have really done instead of diddling with Obamacare and propping up municipal gov'ts) plus job training for the future is strong answers. Free public college not so much. People will see through this and know it's bunk - with Bernie backers the lone exception. Red meat for those guys clearly.

6b) Trump on the economy? This should have been in his wheelhouse. But just saying big tax cuts and companies will hire more workers? Does not guarantee jobs. One thing to keep in mind is that our unemployment numbers - or more specifically the low labor force participation numbers - are structural. You can't have this for 8 years and not have current businesses adapt to the new reality. Tax cuts alone and then saying "bigly" a few times isn't going to cut it. Structural unemployment will be fixed by new training programs and investment in new technologies. Clinton addresses that while Trump did not. But Clinton saying she'll grow the economy by going after the rich rings hollow. The majority of the rich will be small business owners who do their company taxes on their private tax returns. It's just not going to be effective. Trump very briefly mentioned repatriating money from overseas. I assume at a great discount. That's better than what Clinton had said - which was really nothing when it came to bringing the money back to America.

7) GDP growth - WTF is Trump talking about? He said 5 - 6% GDP growth per year is what he expects from his plans? Bullsh!t. That will never happen. More than likely you would overheat the economy and cause major inflation if you tried for those rates. Unlike China and India, our economy is mature. You can't grow at those rates. Either bullsh!t from him or he doesn't fully grasp macroeconomics.

8) National debt. They both suck. However, Trump's plans appear to suck a lot more regarding the debt. His response was that we would grow our way out of the debt. Hmmm... Doesn't give me good vibes when you hear about his growth projections on his plans. They're not sustainable. Nonpartisan groups analyzing both plans indicate Trump's plans are worse. So, I guess Clinton won that segment.

Overall, I thought Trump won. However, I think it's too little, too late. Ironically, the wikileaks steady drip drip drip appears to be putting the country into "wiki-fatigue". We're starting to become desensitized. IMHO, Assange's tactics are beginning to lose their effectiveness.

You've already said you're with her, you're anything but objective.

(10-19-2016 10:30 PM)olliebaba Wrote:  When an election like this has had so many illegal goings-on by the DNC why should Trump concede the election if he loses. It's obvious the Demons are not playing a legal and ethical game. By asking this stupid question that's just like asking for the tip by a waiter before they even serve your food.

Even horse face Meghan is against him and she WORKS at Fox.

I really didn't think there was anything major wrong with Trump saying he wouldn't agree to the outcome until there actually is an outcome. With the way this election season has gone who knows what is still coming in the remaining three weeks or whatever other dark arts are going to be exposed?

I might have worded it more eloquently but that's what I understood from his comment.