Who won the debate?

[TitanTiger 20,482]

4 hours ago, Mims44 said:

What's a scientifically accurate one? What makes one properly conducted? For that matter how do you Titan determine who won in your mind?

Serious question btw, I honestly have no idea how a winner is determined... who sways the most undecided voters? lies the least? makes the least bat crap insane comments?

It's an opinion poll.  I'm not sure what you're wanting here.  My point was just to differentiate between some voluntary online poll vs a properly conducted random sample poll.  Of course some people are so partisan they will call it for their candidate no matter what.  But tellingly, most of the polls had a decisive win for Clinton in this one, even though the electorate is clearly split down the middle.  For instance, CNN had a flash poll shortly after.  They gave the caveat that the sample skewed more Democrat than the population, so take that into account.  It was something like 43% Democrat, 32% Republican in the raw data.  But the respondents had Clinton as the winner 67-33%.  In other words, each side straight up chose their candidate and every single independent chose Hillary, or evena significant number of biased Republicans concede she won.

[Mims44 1,869]

3 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

It's an opinion poll.  I'm not sure what you're wanting here.  My point was just to differentiate between some voluntary online poll vs a properly conducted random sample poll.  Of course some people are so partisan they will call it for their candidate no matter what.  But tellingly, most of the polls had a decisive win for Clinton in this one, even though the electorate is clearly split down the middle.  For instance, CNN had a flash poll shortly after.  They gave the caveat that the sample skewed more Democrat than the population, so take that into account.  It was something like 43% Democrat, 32% Republican in the raw data.  But the respondents had Clinton as the winner 67-33%.  In other words, each side straight up chose their candidate and every single independent chose Hillary, or evena significant number of biased Republicans concede she won.

That makes sense, it's just less than what I had hoped.

[Mims44 1,869]

10 minutes ago, homersapien said:

1) They were the criteria you proffered.

2) The only meaningfully way is through valid polls.

This is in no way helpful, you are capable of more Titan like posts I know it. Get out of your "quick response to Raptor" mind frame.

 

Going off Titans post, there is no concrete criteria and it is up to each individual to determine who won.

[Mikey 16,603]

3 hours ago, homersapien said:

Those were internet polls in which you can vote as many times as you want.  They are worthless.

And deliberately not watching is the same as sticking your head in the sand. Not surprising.

Wrong! Deliberately not watching is not the same as sticking my head in the sand. After having examined both and found both severely wanting, watching them debate would be a complete waste of my time. Sticking one's head in the sand isn't part of evaluating other choices, which am in the process of doing.

Watching Clinton debate someone else, anyone else, is a waste of time for me when I already know that under no circumstances will Clinton get my vote.

[AUUSN 823]

3 hours ago, Mikey said:

Wrong! Deliberately not watching is not the same as sticking my head in the sand. After having examined both and found both severely wanting, watching them debate would be a complete waste of my time. Sticking one's head in the sand isn't part of evaluating other choices, which am in the process of doing.

Watching Clinton debate someone else, anyone else, is a waste of time for me when I already know that under no circumstances will Clinton get my vote.

Translation: "I'm going to stick my head in the sand and vote for Trump."

[AUFAN78 3,897]

10 minutes ago, AUUSN said:

Translation: "I'm going to stick my head in the sand and vote for Trump."

I got to know.   Are you planning to stick your head in the sand and vote for Hilary?

[AUUSN 823]

26 minutes ago, AUFAN78 said:

I got to know.   Are you planning to stick your head in the sand and vote for Hilary?

I'll let the Editorial Board of the USA Today answer for me.

 

 

In the 34-year history of USA TODAY, the Editorial Board has never taken sides in the presidential race. Instead, we’ve expressed opinions about the major issues and haven’t presumed to tell our readers, who have a variety of priorities and values, which choice is best for them. Because every presidential race is different, we revisit our no-endorsement policy every four years. We’ve never seen reason to alter our approach. Until now.

This year, the choice isn’t between two capable major party nominees who happen to have significant ideological differences. This year, one of the candidates — Republican nominee Donald Trump — is, by unanimous consensus of the Editorial Board, unfit for the presidency.

From the day he declared his candidacy 15 months ago through this week’s first presidential debate, Trump has demonstrated repeatedly that he lacks the temperament, knowledge, steadiness and honesty that America needs from its presidents.

Whether through indifference or ignorance, Trump has betrayed fundamental commitments made by all presidents since the end of World War II. These commitments include unwavering support for NATO allies, steadfast opposition to Russian aggression, and the absolute certainty that the United States will make good on its debts. He has expressed troubling admiration for authoritarian leaders and scant regard for constitutional protections.

We’ve been highly critical of the GOP nominee in a number of previous editorials. With early voting already underway in several states and polls showing a close race, now is the time to spell out, in one place, the reasons Trump should not be president:

He is erratic. Trump has been on so many sides of so many issues that attempting to assess his policy positions is like shooting at a moving target. A list prepared by NBC details 124 shifts by Trump on 20 major issues since shortly before he entered the race. He simply spouts slogans and outcomes (he’d replace Obamacare with “something terrific”) without any credible explanations of how he’d achieve them.

He is ill-equipped to be commander in chief. Trump’s foreign policy pronouncements typically range from uninformed to incoherent. It’s not just Democrats who say this. Scores of Republican national security leaders have signed an extraordinary open letter calling Trump’s foreign policy vision “wildly inconsistent and unmoored in principle.” In a Wall Street Journal column this month, Robert Gates, the highly respected former Defense secretary who served presidents of both parties over a half-century, described Trump as “beyond repair.”

He traffics in prejudice. From the very beginning, Trump has built his campaign on appeals to bigotry and xenophobia, whipping up resentment against Mexicans, Muslims and migrants. His proposals for mass deportations and religious tests are unworkable and contrary to America’s ideals.

Trump has stirred racist sentiments in ways that can’t be erased by his belated and clumsy outreach to African Americans. His attacks on an Indiana-born federal judge of Mexican heritage fit “the textbook definition of a racist comment,” according to House Speaker Paul Ryan, the highest-ranking elected official in the Republican Party. And for five years, Trump fanned the absurd “birther” movement that falsely questioned the legitimacy of the nation’s first black president.

His business career is checkered. Trump has built his candidacy on his achievements as a real estate developer and entrepreneur. It’s a shaky scaffold, starting with a 1973 Justice Department suit against Trump and his father for systematically discriminating against blacks in housing rentals. (The Trumps fought the suit but later settled on terms that were viewed as a government victory.) Trump’s companies have had some spectacular financial successes, but this track record is marred by six bankruptcy filings, apparent misuse of the family’s charitable foundation, and allegations by Trump University customers of fraud. A series of investigative articles published by the USA TODAY Network found that Trump has been involved in thousands of lawsuits over the past three decades, including at least 60 that involved small businesses and contract employees who said they were stiffed. So much for being a champion of the little guy.

He isn’t leveling with the American people. Is Trump as rich as he says? No one knows, in part because, alone among major party presidential candidates for the past four decades, he refuses to release his tax returns. Nor do we know whether he has paid his fair share of taxes, or the extent of his foreign financial entanglements.

He speaks recklessly. In the days after the Republican convention, Trump invited Russian hackers to interfere with an American election by releasing Hillary Clinton’s emails, and he raised the prospect of “Second Amendment people” preventing the Democratic nominee from appointing liberal justices. It’s hard to imagine two more irresponsible statements from one presidential candidate.

He has coarsened the national dialogue. Did you ever imagine that a presidential candidate would discuss the size of his genitalia during a nationally televised Republican debate? Neither did we. Did you ever imagine a presidential candidate, one who avoided service in the military, would criticize Gold Star parents who lost a son in Iraq? Neither did we. Did you ever imagine you’d see a presidential candidate mock a disabled reporter? Neither did we. Trump’s inability or unwillingness to ignore criticism raises the specter of a president who, like Richard Nixon, would create enemies’ lists and be consumed with getting even with his critics.

He’s a serial liar. Although polls show that Clinton is considered less honest and trustworthy than Trump, it’s not even a close contest. Trump is in a league of his own when it comes to the quality and quantity of his misstatements. When confronted with a falsehood, such as his assertion that he was always against the Iraq War, Trump’s reaction is to use the Big Lie technique of repeating it so often that people begin to believe it.

We are not unmindful of the issues that Trump’s campaign has exploited: the disappearance of working-class jobs; excessive political correctness; the direction of the Supreme Court; urban unrest and street violence; the rise of the Islamic State terrorist group; gridlock in Washington and the influence of moneyed interests. All are legitimate sources of concern.

Nor does this editorial represent unqualified support for Hillary Clinton, who has her own flaws (though hers are far less likely to threaten national security or lead to a constitutional crisis). The Editorial Board does not have a consensus for a Clinton endorsement.

Some of us look at her command of the issues, resilience and long record of public service — as first lady, U.S. senator and secretary of State — and believe she’d serve the nation ably as its president.

Other board members have serious reservations about Clinton’s sense of entitlement, her lack of candor and her extreme carelessness in handling classified information.

Where does that leave us? Our bottom-line advice for voters is this: Stay true to your convictions. That might mean a vote for Clinton, the most plausible alternative to keep Trump out of the White House. Or it might mean a third-party candidate. Or a write-in. Or a focus on down-ballot candidates who will serve the nation honestly, try to heal its divisions, and work to solve its problems.

Whatever you do, however, resist the siren song of a dangerous demagogue. By all means vote, just not for Donald Trump.

[AUFAN78 3,897]

5 minutes ago, AUUSN said:

I'll let the Editorial Board of the USA Today answer for me.

 

 

In the 34-year history of USA TODAY, the Editorial Board has never taken sides in the presidential race. Instead, we’ve expressed opinions about the major issues and haven’t presumed to tell our readers, who have a variety of priorities and values, which choice is best for them. Because every presidential race is different, we revisit our no-endorsement policy every four years. We’ve never seen reason to alter our approach. Until now.

This year, the choice isn’t between two capable major party nominees who happen to have significant ideological differences. This year, one of the candidates — Republican nominee Donald Trump — is, by unanimous consensus of the Editorial Board, unfit for the presidency.

From the day he declared his candidacy 15 months ago through this week’s first presidential debate, Trump has demonstrated repeatedly that he lacks the temperament, knowledge, steadiness and honesty that America needs from its presidents.

Whether through indifference or ignorance, Trump has betrayed fundamental commitments made by all presidents since the end of World War II. These commitments include unwavering support for NATO allies, steadfast opposition to Russian aggression, and the absolute certainty that the United States will make good on its debts. He has expressed troubling admiration for authoritarian leaders and scant regard for constitutional protections.

We’ve been highly critical of the GOP nominee in a number of previous editorials. With early voting already underway in several states and polls showing a close race, now is the time to spell out, in one place, the reasons Trump should not be president:

He is erratic. Trump has been on so many sides of so many issues that attempting to assess his policy positions is like shooting at a moving target. A list prepared by NBC details 124 shifts by Trump on 20 major issues since shortly before he entered the race. He simply spouts slogans and outcomes (he’d replace Obamacare with “something terrific”) without any credible explanations of how he’d achieve them.

He is ill-equipped to be commander in chief. Trump’s foreign policy pronouncements typically range from uninformed to incoherent. It’s not just Democrats who say this. Scores of Republican national security leaders have signed an extraordinary open letter calling Trump’s foreign policy vision “wildly inconsistent and unmoored in principle.” In a Wall Street Journal column this month, Robert Gates, the highly respected former Defense secretary who served presidents of both parties over a half-century, described Trump as “beyond repair.”

He traffics in prejudice. From the very beginning, Trump has built his campaign on appeals to bigotry and xenophobia, whipping up resentment against Mexicans, Muslims and migrants. His proposals for mass deportations and religious tests are unworkable and contrary to America’s ideals.

Trump has stirred racist sentiments in ways that can’t be erased by his belated and clumsy outreach to African Americans. His attacks on an Indiana-born federal judge of Mexican heritage fit “the textbook definition of a racist comment,” according to House Speaker Paul Ryan, the highest-ranking elected official in the Republican Party. And for five years, Trump fanned the absurd “birther” movement that falsely questioned the legitimacy of the nation’s first black president.

His business career is checkered. Trump has built his candidacy on his achievements as a real estate developer and entrepreneur. It’s a shaky scaffold, starting with a 1973 Justice Department suit against Trump and his father for systematically discriminating against blacks in housing rentals. (The Trumps fought the suit but later settled on terms that were viewed as a government victory.) Trump’s companies have had some spectacular financial successes, but this track record is marred by six bankruptcy filings, apparent misuse of the family’s charitable foundation, and allegations by Trump University customers of fraud. A series of investigative articles published by the USA TODAY Network found that Trump has been involved in thousands of lawsuits over the past three decades, including at least 60 that involved small businesses and contract employees who said they were stiffed. So much for being a champion of the little guy.

He isn’t leveling with the American people. Is Trump as rich as he says? No one knows, in part because, alone among major party presidential candidates for the past four decades, he refuses to release his tax returns. Nor do we know whether he has paid his fair share of taxes, or the extent of his foreign financial entanglements.

He speaks recklessly. In the days after the Republican convention, Trump invited Russian hackers to interfere with an American election by releasing Hillary Clinton’s emails, and he raised the prospect of “Second Amendment people” preventing the Democratic nominee from appointing liberal justices. It’s hard to imagine two more irresponsible statements from one presidential candidate.

He has coarsened the national dialogue. Did you ever imagine that a presidential candidate would discuss the size of his genitalia during a nationally televised Republican debate? Neither did we. Did you ever imagine a presidential candidate, one who avoided service in the military, would criticize Gold Star parents who lost a son in Iraq? Neither did we. Did you ever imagine you’d see a presidential candidate mock a disabled reporter? Neither did we. Trump’s inability or unwillingness to ignore criticism raises the specter of a president who, like Richard Nixon, would create enemies’ lists and be consumed with getting even with his critics.

He’s a serial liar. Although polls show that Clinton is considered less honest and trustworthy than Trump, it’s not even a close contest. Trump is in a league of his own when it comes to the quality and quantity of his misstatements. When confronted with a falsehood, such as his assertion that he was always against the Iraq War, Trump’s reaction is to use the Big Lie technique of repeating it so often that people begin to believe it.

We are not unmindful of the issues that Trump’s campaign has exploited: the disappearance of working-class jobs; excessive political correctness; the direction of the Supreme Court; urban unrest and street violence; the rise of the Islamic State terrorist group; gridlock in Washington and the influence of moneyed interests. All are legitimate sources of concern.

Nor does this editorial represent unqualified support for Hillary Clinton, who has her own flaws (though hers are far less likely to threaten national security or lead to a constitutional crisis). The Editorial Board does not have a consensus for a Clinton endorsement.

Some of us look at her command of the issues, resilience and long record of public service — as first lady, U.S. senator and secretary of State — and believe she’d serve the nation ably as its president.

Other board members have serious reservations about Clinton’s sense of entitlement, her lack of candor and her extreme carelessness in handling classified information.

Where does that leave us? Our bottom-line advice for voters is this: Stay true to your convictions. That might mean a vote for Clinton, the most plausible alternative to keep Trump out of the White House. Or it might mean a third-party candidate. Or a write-in. Or a focus on down-ballot candidates who will serve the nation honestly, try to heal its divisions, and work to solve its problems.

Whatever you do, however, resist the siren song of a dangerous demagogue. By all means vote, just not for Donald Trump.

Well alrighty then. There is hope. 

[Auburnfan91 1,407]

On 9/27/2016 at 8:53 AM, TitanTiger said:

Speaking of fact checks:Facebook

• Twitter
• Google Plus
• Embe

 

I wonder why an unsubstantiated claim that Hilary brought up about Trump calling a former Miss Universe "Miss Piggy and Miss Housekeeping" wasn't immediately fact checked? So far there's been no independent confirmation that Trump made those comments yet the media has given it so much airtime but won't do any vetting or investigative reporting on it. The media is just running with it and aiding Hilary's talking points without fact checking. Somehow it's been muddily accepted and the media won't do their due diligence in questioning the credibility of the accuser like they routinely do and providing the public with some actual evidence.

If everything's on the table to be fact checked, even Trump's smart-alecky comment about Hilary fighting ISIS her entire adult life being deemed worthy of an actual fact check, then Hilary should be fact checked on the accuracy of the accusations she thought were important enough to bring up during the debate.  

[TitanTiger 20,482]

6 minutes ago, Auburnfan91 said:

I wonder why an unsubstantiated claim that Hilary brought up about Trump calling a former Miss Universe "Miss Piggy and Miss Housekeeping" wasn't immediately fact checked?

To my knowledge, Trump himself isn't even denying it.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2016/09/27/trump-defends-comments-on-former-miss-universe-she-gained-a-massive-amount-of-weight-it-was-a-real-problem/

 

6 minutes ago, Auburnfan91 said:

If everything's on the table to be fact checked, even Trump's smart-alecky comment about Hilary fighting ISIS her entire adult life being deemed worthy of an actual fact check, then Hilary should be fact checked on the accuracy of the accusations she thought were important enough to bring up during the debate.  

If the comment was said directly to the woman and no one else was around, I'm not sure how you'd fact check it.  The woman herself claims he said it, Trump hasn't denied it and he's even gone on to explain that she'd gained a lot of weight, so even if he didn't use those specific words, I'm betting by his response to all of this that he said something close enough.  

[Auburnfan91 1,407]

46 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

To my knowledge, Trump himself isn't even denying it.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2016/09/27/trump-defends-comments-on-former-miss-universe-she-gained-a-massive-amount-of-weight-it-was-a-real-problem/

 

If the comment was said directly to the woman and no one else was around, I'm not sure how you'd fact check it.  The woman herself claims he said it, Trump hasn't denied it and he's even gone on to explain that she'd gained a lot of weight, so even if he didn't use those specific words, I'm betting by his response to all of this that he said something close enough.  

Him not denying it isn't sufficient to be proven guilty. He has said she gained a lot of weight. Part of her job as reigning Miss Universe was to stay in good physical shape. Apparently the people running the Miss Universe pageant weren't pleased with her gaining weight or Trump would have never gotten wind of it. Unless the pageant didn't think it was a problem than I doubt Trump would have seen it as a problem. Plus we don't know all that was said between Trump and Mrs. Machado, only what Hilary wants to make an issue of by making herself out to be a role-model for women and champion of women. And Mrs. Machado's comments about Melania Trump after the debate show she's not a someone who can be seen as a nice and rational person if she's willing to go after someone who has done nothing to her. Yet all the media want to talk about is how much of a victim Machado is and not bring up anything else about her other than Trump was mean to her and hurt her feelings.

If his past from 20 years ago is fair game, then people whining about him possibly going after Hilary's past in how she handled Bill's affair should be fair game. The excuses being made about people not caring or a big bloc of voters weren't old enough to remember the affair are just cop outs and justifications for bringing up everything under the sun to attack Trump with. Nothing is off limits in going after Trump, so Hilary shouldn't get special treatment, yet the media is actively trying to aid Clinton by telling the public what is worthy of being discussed and how the candidates should be judged through the kind of discussion the media thinks should be had.

I hope Trump brings up Hilary's handling of Bill's affair, if he's going to have the kitchen sink thrown at him, then those who don't like him anyway have no point to criticize him for doing the same to Hilary. Neither candidate's record reflects that they should be regarded as fitting the "standard" of presidential. Neither candidate should be allowed to say they took the high road.

[selias 2,398]

10 hours ago, homersapien said:

And deliberately not watching is the same as sticking your head in the sand. Not surprising.

I watched about as much as I could stomach (10 minute or so) and saw exactly what I expected, Trump and Female Trump making a mockery of this election cycle.

[Mikey 16,603]

3 hours ago, AUUSN said:

Translation: "I'm going to stick my head in the sand and vote for Trump."

Another one that's reading impaired. As I stated above, I may or may not vote for Trump. I certainly will not vote for Clinton.

[homersapien 11,373]

9 hours ago, Mims44 said:

This is in no way helpful, you are capable of more Titan like posts I know it. Get out of your "quick response to Raptor" mind frame.

 

Going off Titans post, there is no concrete criteria and it is up to each individual to determine who won.

Sorry you have such a problem with brevity. But I see no need for further explanation.  

Go back.  Read your post.  Read my response.  It's all there.  

But if you have any questions I will entertain them.

[homersapien 11,373]

25 minutes ago, selias said:

I watched about as much as I could stomach (10 minute or so) and saw exactly what I expected, Trump and Female Trump making a mockery of this election cycle.

Ten minutes was not a valid sample for the format they used.

You either have an attention problem or you didn't want to hear it.

[selias 2,398]

Just now, homersapien said:

10 minutes was not a valid sample for the format they used.

You either have an attention problem or you didn't want to hear it.

Sometimes my attention will wander but that's not why I tuned off the debate. It's a dog and pony show. If you don't know where HRC stands after 30 years in the public sector, you're not paying attention. DJT is a buffoon and, unfortunately, not an entertaining one.

[homersapien 11,373]

43 minutes ago, Auburnfan91 said:

Him not denying it isn't sufficient to be proven guilty. He has said she gained a lot of weight. Part of her job as reigning Miss Universe was to stay in good physical shape. Apparently the people running the Miss Universe pageant weren't pleased with her gaining weight or Trump would have never gotten wind of it. Unless the pageant didn't think it was a problem than I doubt Trump would have seen it as a problem. Plus we don't know all that was said between Trump and Mrs. Machado, only what Hilary wants to make an issue of by making herself out to be a role-model for women and champion of women. And Mrs. Machado's comments about Melania Trump after the debate show she's not a someone who can be seen as a nice and rational person if she's willing to go after someone who has done nothing to her. Yet all the media want to talk about is how much of a victim Machado is and not bring up anything else about her other than Trump was mean to her and hurt her feelings.

If his past from 20 years ago is fair game, then people whining about him possibly going after Hilary's past in how she handled Bill's affair should be fair game. The excuses being made about people not caring or a big bloc of voters weren't old enough to remember the affair are just cop outs and justifications for bringing up everything under the sun to attack Trump with. Nothing is off limits in going after Trump, so Hilary shouldn't get special treatment, yet the media is actively trying to aid Clinton by telling the public what is worthy of being discussed and how the candidates should be judged through the kind of discussion the media thinks should be had.

I hope Trump brings up Hilary's handling of Bill's affair, if he's going to have the kitchen sink thrown at him, then those who don't like him anyway have no point to criticize him for doing the same to Hilary. Neither candidate's record reflects that they should be regarded as fitting the "standard" of presidSoential. Neither candidate should be allowed to say they took the high road.

Are you seriously going to defend Donald against the charge of misogyny?

[Auburnfan91 1,407]

8 minutes ago, homersapien said:

Are you seriously going to defend Donald against the charge of misogyny?

 

If you're going to go there then the one's using the charge should use nothing but factual accusations that can be proven. Miss Piggy and Miss Housekeeping is not something that can be proven. Anything is allowed to be thrown at Trump, factual or not. And no counter evidence will sway you on anything because your mind is made up that everything bad Trump is accused of is true..

The story about Trump telling a mom to take her crying child outside during a rally turned out to be a false accusation. 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2016/08/06/trumps-right-he-didnt-kick-a-baby-out-of-a-campaign-rally/

And the accusation of Trump mocking a disabled reporter's disability is questionable at best. Trump has used an arm motion multiple times before he did it in front of the disabled reporter.

 

 

[Mims44 1,869]

1 hour ago, homersapien said:

Sorry you have such a problem with brevity. But I see no need for further explanation.  

Go back.  Read your post.  Read my response.  It's all there.  

But if you have any questions I will entertain them.

Titan handled them man...

I started off saying I had no idea what criteria if any there was for declaring a "winner". Titan gave an informative response to a question, and I now feel like I understand the process of these "whose the winner" polls a bit. You responded extremely vaguely. You did give a response, but it in no way educated me on the process.

[TitanTiger 20,482]

8 hours ago, Auburnfan91 said:

Him not denying it isn't sufficient to be proven guilty.

It's not a court of law.  We're not looking for DNA evidence here.

 

Quote

He has said she gained a lot of weight. Part of her job as reigning Miss Universe was to stay in good physical shape. Apparently the people running the Miss Universe pageant weren't pleased with her gaining weight or Trump would have never gotten wind of it. Unless the pageant didn't think it was a problem than I doubt Trump would have seen it as a problem. Plus we don't know all that was said between Trump and Mrs. Machado, only what Hilary wants to make an issue of by making herself out to be a role-model for women and champion of women. And Mrs. Machado's comments about Melania Trump after the debate show she's not a someone who can be seen as a nice and rational person if she's willing to go after someone who has done nothing to her. Yet all the media want to talk about is how much of a victim Machado is and not bring up anything else about her other than Trump was mean to her and hurt her feelings.

Look, we know Trump has a history of making disparaging public remarks about various women's appearance and weight.  She claimed he did this to her and the comments included calling her "Miss Piggy."  He's been asked about this a few times now over the last week and he doesn't deny the comment but doubles down on the fact that she gained weight, which to any thinking person is a tacit admission that he at least made some sharp remarks to her about it.  Otherwise you simply say, "I never spoke to her that way or said those things.  She's exaggerating."  This isn't rocket science and Mr. Trump has given you less than zero reasons to give him the benefit of the doubt on it.

 

Quote

If his past from 20 years ago is fair game, then people whining about him possibly going after Hilary's past in how she handled Bill's affair should be fair game. The excuses being made about people not caring or a big bloc of voters weren't old enough to remember the affair are just cop outs and justifications for bringing up everything under the sun to attack Trump with. Nothing is off limits in going after Trump, so Hilary shouldn't get special treatment, yet the media is actively trying to aid Clinton by telling the public what is worthy of being discussed and how the candidates should be judged through the kind of discussion the media thinks should be had.

I hope Trump brings up Hilary's handling of Bill's affair, if he's going to have the kitchen sink thrown at him, then those who don't like him anyway have no point to criticize him for doing the same to Hilary. Neither candidate's record reflects that they should be regarded as fitting the "standard" of presidential. Neither candidate should be allowed to say they took the high road.

I don't really care if he goes there or not.  It's not relevant to whether the pattern of things Trump has said to and about women publicly (not just 20 years ago) is true or a valid point to bring up.  

That said, I'm not sure this tactic will be the slam dunk for him against her he thinks it will be.

[homersapien 11,373]

11 hours ago, Mims44 said:

Titan handled them man...

I started off saying I had no idea what criteria if any there was for declaring a "winner". Titan gave an informative response to a question, and I now feel like I understand the process of these "whose the winner" polls a bit. You responded extremely vaguely. You did give a response, but it in no way educated me on the process.

There's the problem.

[homersapien 11,373]

Donald didn't do this:  

http://www.cnn.com/videos/tv/2015/11/26/donald-trump-mocks-reporter-with-disability-berman-sot-ac.cnn

 

Good grief man, you are totally delusional.

[AUDub 11,148]

So let's see how the snap polls turned out. Trump's first half hour was a disaster but he did settle in, even though very little of what he said was true. 

[AUDub 11,148]

CNN poll has it 57-34 (101%?) Hillary. Well we'll see how the proper polls turn out this week. 

[quietfan 233]

I chose not to watch either debate...didn't care to waste 90 minutes (or his half of that time) watching a narcissist rant.  To be honest, wasn't that interested in spending the other half of that time watching Hillary either.

I can read about the highlights tomorrow and watch any moments that pique my interest.  I pretty much already know where both candidates stand on the issues AND their personality quirks or flaws.  Really, the only won/lost scenario that interests me at this point is on November 8th.