|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On September 27 2016 23:19 OuchyDathurts wrote:Show nested quote +On September 27 2016 23:14 LegalLord wrote:
You know, after thinking about it overnight, I'd have to say that what really went down was that Drumpf lacked preparation and it showed. There were a good few dozen opportunities in that debate for a high-quality trouncing of Hillary but instead he floundered in a few key moments because he wasn't prepared to make good use of them. I'm not sure preparation is a thing for the man honestly. But they are both lucky they're fighting against each other. If either of them were against virtually anyone else we'd need a meat wagon right now. What the hell does over-prepared for a presidential debate even mean? That's not a thing.
It means that she doesnt do improv. As is generally agreed, she didnt need to do anything and she doesnt have have the mic drop powers, the charisma or the fluency that Obama has. Its very clear she doesnt feel comfortable doing it.
And honestly thats fine, I mean realistically speaking who gives a fuck if the candidate is witty or clever in the moment. But when it comes to debating that is a way more powerful tool than facts and knowledge.
|
CLINTON: Well, Donald, I know you live in your own reality, but that is not the facts.
Hahaha, I'm reading the transcript. Priceless line.
(Trump does interrupt a lot in that part.)
|
On September 27 2016 23:43 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On September 27 2016 23:23 Trainrunnef wrote:On September 27 2016 23:14 LegalLord wrote:
You know, after thinking about it overnight, I'd have to say that what really went down was that Trump lacked preparation and it showed. There were a good few dozen opportunities in that debate for a high-quality trouncing of Hillary but instead he floundered in a few key moments because he wasn't prepared to make good use of them. When the Cyber-warfare question got brought up and it was Trump's i thought to myself, "whelp there goes Clinton's win". I was so sure that he would hammer her with the emails since she had gotten hacked, but his response made me start to think that he had no idea what they were referring to. The fact that he went off on the tangent about his 10 year old was really confusing, and the only answer i could come up with was the fact that he has no idea what cyber warfare really means, so he defaults to the same 4 things that he always says. "China is killing us in ...." "... will make America great again" "... is a great ... i love ..." "... is 'uge" Also the way he was using it in the sentence was really strange. http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/video/clinton-trump-debate-cybersecurity-hacks-42379073 If I were Trump I would have hammered Hillary with Comey and Lynch on the email issue. Comey gave the Republicans just short of an indiction on the email issue and Lynch did what guilty people do. With some preparation it would have been a one-sided curbstomp. Romney would have managed it if he were the nominee. Hell, even John Rambo McCain might have managed to make it work.
Trump doesn't understand the email issue well enough to attack her on it, I think. The whole "release your deleted emails" nonsense rebuttal when asked about his taxes demonstrates that quite clearly, as does his rambling about how "it wasn't a mistake, it was purposeful" without giving any indication of the purpose.
|
On September 27 2016 13:24 FiWiFaKi wrote:Show nested quote +On September 27 2016 13:22 Danglars wrote:
All three sucked, including the moderator.
Trump big first half but man did he fall hard. And so many missed opportunities. Like fucking lay-ups. If you can't hit them, I fear for finishing the campaign well.
Hillary comes out ahead because she recovered and stayed steady. She is ahead in the race and this will stall Trump's momentum in my view, though I can't expect more than ~a point gain.
Who had "Hannity" on their drinking game lol You know, I really am surprised at the reaction I'm seeing... Usually I'm all about the hmm, you're misunderstanding Trump, taking this out of context, but now it's the other way I round. I really can't think of much that Trump could have done to be worse. I actually had to take my headphones off a couple times and say, shit this is embarrassing. I thought from the first moment it was just so weak, while Hillary was super composed and coherent the whole time.
i'm surprised you see much difference;
from my point of view; this is basically how this election has been the entire time, and all this debate did was retread old ground and show stuff you've already seen if you've been following things.
though I guess hillary was doing a bit better than average.
|
Remember when people said Christie was the favorite for 2016?
|
Drudge has only 83% of respondents saying Trump won the debate. That's really, really low.
|
On September 27 2016 17:53 zeo wrote:
Seeing as how biased the moderator was Trump did fine, made both Clinton and the mod look like fools. Clinton got really desperate with her character assassination attempts and Trump just deflected with turning them into policy driven answers.
All in all Clinton has no chance against a non-biased moderator. Looking forward to the next debates.
edit: Not to mention Clinton wearing that earpiece.
Lol. You will really spin reality any way to avoid the truth won't you?
|
On September 28 2016 00:43 Slaughter wrote:Show nested quote +On September 27 2016 17:53 zeo wrote:
Seeing as how biased the moderator was Trump did fine, made both Clinton and the mod look like fools. Clinton got really desperate with her character assassination attempts and Trump just deflected with turning them into policy driven answers.
All in all Clinton has no chance against a non-biased moderator. Looking forward to the next debates.
edit: Not to mention Clinton wearing that earpiece. Lol. You will really spin reality any way to avoid the truth won't you?
Rule number 1 of debates: If your candidate bombs, blame the moderator. Been that way since the invention of the televised presidential debate.
|
In all the above points, the opening for Mrs Clinton's advantage was set by the moderator. He first brought up Mr Trump's taxes. He asked about the Obama "birther" controversy. He pushed Mr Trump on the Iraq War and brought up his comment about her "look", which led to the extended discussion of presidential temperament and judgement. Mrs Clinton's weaknesses - particularly her use of a private email server and potential conflicts of interest in her charitable foundation - were barely discussed.
If the winner of political conflict is dictated by the ground on which it is fought, then most of the debate was contested on terrain that was favourable to the Democrat. Some of that was her own effective strategy and preparation; the lawyer's advantage. Some of it was Mr Trump's missteps and meandering; the salesman's failure to move his product.
A lot of it, however, was Holt's doing. That will have Democrats smiling and Trump supporters howling.
holt factor
This was my assessment as well, good prep from clinton, poor prep from trump, biased moderation.
|
As a New Jerseyan, I can assure you that we never said that 
|
On September 28 2016 00:54 biology]major wrote:Show nested quote +In all the above points, the opening for Mrs Clinton's advantage was set by the moderator. He first brought up Mr Trump's taxes. He asked about the Obama "birther" controversy. He pushed Mr Trump on the Iraq War and brought up his comment about her "look", which led to the extended discussion of presidential temperament and judgement. Mrs Clinton's weaknesses - particularly her use of a private email server and potential conflicts of interest in her charitable foundation - were barely discussed.
If the winner of political conflict is dictated by the ground on which it is fought, then most of the debate was contested on terrain that was favourable to the Democrat. Some of that was her own effective strategy and preparation; the lawyer's advantage. Some of it was Mr Trump's missteps and meandering; the salesman's failure to move his product.
A lot of it, however, was Holt's doing. That will have Democrats smiling and Trump supporters howling. holt factorThis was my assessment as well, good prep from clinton, poor prep from trump, biased moderation.
Not biased. 100% unbiased that happen to be extremely terrible for Trump. The issues asked of Trump would be gigantic issues to any other candidate. Holt treated Trump like any other candidate. Refusal to release taxes in a modern day election is nothing short of lunacy. Clinton, Romney, McCain would all be hung for a refusal to release tax returns or to question the birthplace of the president. Holt was able to realize they are running for the same job.
In short, he compiled the list of ridiculous shit, based on the extent of how ridiculous the things were. He addressed them in ranking of how ridiculous they are. No taxes in a modern election is very ridiculous. Questioning Obama's birthplace a year ago is EXTREMELY ridiculous. You have to stop and realize what that actually is and how incredibly abnormal that is. You can't just be like "lol no brakes!!" and move on. This is all real.
|
On September 27 2016 23:51 Rebs wrote:Show nested quote +On September 27 2016 23:19 OuchyDathurts wrote:On September 27 2016 23:14 LegalLord wrote:
You know, after thinking about it overnight, I'd have to say that what really went down was that Drumpf lacked preparation and it showed. There were a good few dozen opportunities in that debate for a high-quality trouncing of Hillary but instead he floundered in a few key moments because he wasn't prepared to make good use of them. I'm not sure preparation is a thing for the man honestly. But they are both lucky they're fighting against each other. If either of them were against virtually anyone else we'd need a meat wagon right now. https://twitter.com/MeetThePress/status/780598101937643520What the hell does over-prepared for a presidential debate even mean? That's not a thing. It means that she doesnt do improv. As is generally agreed, she didnt need to do anything and she doesnt have have the mic drop powers, the charisma or the fluency that Obama has. Its very clear she doesnt feel comfortable doing it. And honestly thats fine, I mean realistically speaking who gives a fuck if the candidate is witty or clever in the moment. But when it comes to debating that is a way more powerful tool than facts and knowledge.
Honestly, I think her improv was way more on point than I was expecting. She hit a few awkward notes, especially in the beginning, but she stuck the landing on quite a few little zingers---way more than Trump, if you ask me.
|
On September 27 2016 23:23 Grumbels wrote:Show nested quote +On September 27 2016 23:05 kwizach wrote:On September 27 2016 18:22 Ghostcom wrote:On September 27 2016 18:05 Grumbels wrote:On September 27 2016 17:57 Ghostcom wrote:On September 27 2016 17:48 Grumbels wrote:On September 27 2016 17:32 DickMcFanny wrote:On September 27 2016 16:36 Grumbels wrote:On September 27 2016 15:54 {ToT}ColmA wrote:
as i am not an american who has to vote for either of those two..i am glad. i feel sorry for you guys out there. i can not come to terms that those two are in vote for presidency. what happend america Hillary Clinton is maybe not charismatic, but you can make a case that she is the most qualified, most honest and most transparent candidate in recent history. Obama and Sanders endorsed her, she has the full support of the democratic party. Hatred of HRC is 95% a consequence of right-wing smear campaigns and various types of sexist undercurrents in America. Viewed objectively she is a normal candidate, a normal politician, better than most and with many accomplishments throughout her life, plus the bonus factor of being potentially the first female president. Trump is an unabashedly sexist and racist cretin, literally a threat to world civilization. His ascendency is a total disgrace. Please don't equate these two in any way. . Gotta love this holier-than-though attitude. People like you are just as much to blame for Trump as right wing white supremacists are. "Sexist undercurrent" and "right wing smear", you have to be joking. There's a lot of objectionable shit about Hillary and the Clinton foundation, lots of reasonable concerns that she's just bullshitting. Please read this article which demonstrates what everyone already knows: people support the far right because they are racists and because they feel loss of status compared to minorities (see the whining about political correctness). It's not because of the left alienating people, it's because mainstream politicians can not abandon commitment to tolerance and modern governance to cater to white nationalists. And since no good deed goes unpunished they get called out of touch because of it. By the way, I don't know what you tried to imply, but sexism does exist in the USA and affects how people perceive Clinton. For instance, female authority is rejected. ( example) And there is a long history of right wing smears against Clinton. (some examples here) I might be misunderstanding you here: Are you implying that all of Trumps supporters are racists? Being racist correlates to supporting Trump and supporting the European populist parties. You can draw your own conclusions, but in my view Clinton wasn't wrong when she called half of Trump supporters "deplorable". I'm specifically asking you to expand on your statements because I don't want to jump to conclusions... Now you are stating that being racist (assumption: being racists towards non-whites) correlates to supporting Trump - which is likely true. However, I hope you can see the difference between this, and claiming that everyone who supports Trump are racist (which the initial post I responded to implied). So perhaps you can understand my confusion here? I don't see how Grumbels' initial post implied that every Trump supporter was racist. I don't think anyone believes that. I regularly see people in this thread confuse the statement "racists tend to vote for Donald Trump" with "Donald Trump supporters are all racists". It's a basic misunderstanding of the argument being made. As for sources for Grumbels' position, see here and see here for two studies pointing towards racial resentment being a strong indicator of support of Trump. I think partly the problem is sloppy use of terminology on my part. I'm guilty of conflating the following things: racist vs having racist beliefs, being a white nationalist vs supporting white nationalist movements. Racist is such a loaded word that you have to be more careful in using it, I guess. For the record, I don't think every supporter of these populist parties is actually a white nationalist, but I do think they are guilty of enabling racist rhetoric and empowering white nationalists. I also don't think that every person that has some unexamined racial biases or has feelings of resentment about other races is necessarily a hardcore movement racist, nevertheless they often serve as useful mainstream allies for actual white nationalists. Not all Trump supporters are racist and are attracted to Trump because of racism, but it's still very significant. And the fact that racial resentment correlates to Trump support just seems hugely significant and gives an important clue about his campaign and similar movements in Europe. By the way, my brother votes for the Dutch "freedom party" and as he's consuming a steady diet of these resentment-based media channels that promote white victimhood I can see him slowly radicalizing. One of his friends, who wasn't that politically active before now said the following: he doesn't believe in interracial marriage and he thinks there will be a pan-European conflict between the nationalists (the good guys) and the liberal globalists that use immigration to destroy our culture. People like Trump actually radicalize otherwise normal people, or at least play into their insecurities. It's dangerous.
Not to derail the discussion, but do you guys understand how logic works, specifically what implication is?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Material_conditional
In this case, we suppose the theory that if A then B, if you are racist/white supremacist, then you support Trump is true, A being you are racist, B being you support Trump, which seems reasonable. It is logically incorrect to conclude that the argument is also, if B then A, if you support Trump then you are racist. If A then B and if B then A are not logically equivalent meaning you can't conclude if B then A without adding new information.
Just want to make we're presently the arguments we mean to say. You have to be careful with words.
|
United States43219 Posts
On September 28 2016 00:54 biology]major wrote:Show nested quote +In all the above points, the opening for Mrs Clinton's advantage was set by the moderator. He first brought up Mr Trump's taxes. He asked about the Obama "birther" controversy. He pushed Mr Trump on the Iraq War and brought up his comment about her "look", which led to the extended discussion of presidential temperament and judgement. Mrs Clinton's weaknesses - particularly her use of a private email server and potential conflicts of interest in her charitable foundation - were barely discussed.
If the winner of political conflict is dictated by the ground on which it is fought, then most of the debate was contested on terrain that was favourable to the Democrat. Some of that was her own effective strategy and preparation; the lawyer's advantage. Some of it was Mr Trump's missteps and meandering; the salesman's failure to move his product.
A lot of it, however, was Holt's doing. That will have Democrats smiling and Trump supporters howling. holt factorThis was my assessment as well, good prep from clinton, poor prep from trump, biased moderation.
I think it's more about how they dealt with the material they were given. Trump said superpredators once and didn't make anything of it so she just completely ignored it because he didn't flesh it out. She didn't give him the same mercy with his taxes. When she was asked about emails she damage controlled it, when Trump was asked about his temperament he lost control. When she was asked about her support of the Iraq invasion she owned it, when he was asked about the same he tried to phone a friend.
Clinton's hard questions didn't seem so hard because she maintained control. It doesn't mean the questions were easier, it means she was a better debater. Whereas Trump refused to diffuse anything. All he had to do on Iraq was say "In 2002 I was getting my information from the same place as everyone else and the intelligence reports said that Saddam was developing WMDs. We were misled. I was misled. However my stance against rogue nations getting WMDs is consistent and that is why I am so opposed to our inaction in the face of North Korean aggression and this terrible Iran deal". The problem wasn't the question, the problem was Trump.
|
On September 28 2016 00:58 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On September 28 2016 00:54 biology]major wrote:In all the above points, the opening for Mrs Clinton's advantage was set by the moderator. He first brought up Mr Trump's taxes. He asked about the Obama "birther" controversy. He pushed Mr Trump on the Iraq War and brought up his comment about her "look", which led to the extended discussion of presidential temperament and judgement. Mrs Clinton's weaknesses - particularly her use of a private email server and potential conflicts of interest in her charitable foundation - were barely discussed.
If the winner of political conflict is dictated by the ground on which it is fought, then most of the debate was contested on terrain that was favourable to the Democrat. Some of that was her own effective strategy and preparation; the lawyer's advantage. Some of it was Mr Trump's missteps and meandering; the salesman's failure to move his product.
A lot of it, however, was Holt's doing. That will have Democrats smiling and Trump supporters howling. holt factorThis was my assessment as well, good prep from clinton, poor prep from trump, biased moderation. Not biased. 100% unbiased that happen to be extremely terrible for Trump. The issues asked of Trump would be gigantic issues to any other candidate. Holt treated Trump like any other candidate. Refusal to release taxes in a modern day election is nothing short of lunacy. Clinton, Romney, McCain would all be hung for a refusal to release tax returns or to question the birthplace of the president. Holt was able to realize they are running for the same job.
That's cool, I have no issue with asking trump hard questions. What I do have an issue with is not offering the same hard questions to clinton. He basically praised her when he pulled the woman card, and didn't bring up her weaknesses. Oh well it all falls on deaf ears, or blind eyes in this case.
|
On September 28 2016 00:54 biology]major wrote:Show nested quote +In all the above points, the opening for Mrs Clinton's advantage was set by the moderator. He first brought up Mr Trump's taxes. He asked about the Obama "birther" controversy. He pushed Mr Trump on the Iraq War and brought up his comment about her "look", which led to the extended discussion of presidential temperament and judgement. Mrs Clinton's weaknesses - particularly her use of a private email server and potential conflicts of interest in her charitable foundation - were barely discussed.
If the winner of political conflict is dictated by the ground on which it is fought, then most of the debate was contested on terrain that was favourable to the Democrat. Some of that was her own effective strategy and preparation; the lawyer's advantage. Some of it was Mr Trump's missteps and meandering; the salesman's failure to move his product.
A lot of it, however, was Holt's doing. That will have Democrats smiling and Trump supporters howling. holt factorThis was my assessment as well, good prep from clinton, poor prep from trump, biased moderation.
One of the main reasons Trump has been able to avoid these questions is that he stopped doing press conferences. He only appears on friendly shows like Fox and Friends. But when the questions were asked last night, he couldn't dodge or deflect. He had several chances to respond to Hillary, but he failed on ever level.
There is no way he didn't know these questions were coming. Those issues have been sticking points that he has refused to lay to rest in the press, so they were going to be addressed. They barely touched on the Trump foundation or his failed development in Atlantic City, where he took money out of the project to pay personal debts and then stiffed a lot of the workers.
Saying the moderator is biased only works if you didn't expect him to ask questions that the press has been asking for over a year. Trump's problem is that he failed to address these issues leading up to the debate, so he couldn't' talk about the issues he wanted.
On September 28 2016 01:02 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On September 28 2016 00:54 biology]major wrote:In all the above points, the opening for Mrs Clinton's advantage was set by the moderator. He first brought up Mr Trump's taxes. He asked about the Obama "birther" controversy. He pushed Mr Trump on the Iraq War and brought up his comment about her "look", which led to the extended discussion of presidential temperament and judgement. Mrs Clinton's weaknesses - particularly her use of a private email server and potential conflicts of interest in her charitable foundation - were barely discussed.
If the winner of political conflict is dictated by the ground on which it is fought, then most of the debate was contested on terrain that was favourable to the Democrat. Some of that was her own effective strategy and preparation; the lawyer's advantage. Some of it was Mr Trump's missteps and meandering; the salesman's failure to move his product.
A lot of it, however, was Holt's doing. That will have Democrats smiling and Trump supporters howling. holt factorThis was my assessment as well, good prep from clinton, poor prep from trump, biased moderation. I think it's more about how they dealt with the material they were given. Trump said superpredators once and didn't make anything of it so she just completely ignored it because he didn't flesh it out. She didn't give him the same mercy with his taxes. When she was asked about emails she damage controlled it, when Trump was asked about his temperament he lost control. When she was asked about her support of the Iraq invasion she owned it, when he was asked about the same he tried to phone a friend. Clinton's hard questions didn't seem so hard because she maintained control. It doesn't mean the questions were easier, it means she was a better debater. Whereas Trump refused to diffuse anything. All he had to do on Iraq was say "In 2002 I was getting my information from the same place as everyone else and the intelligence reports said that Saddam was developing WMDs. We were misled. I was misled. However my stance against rogue nations getting WMDs is consistent and that is why I am so opposed to our inaction in the face of North Korean aggression and this terrible Iran deal". The problem wasn't the question, the problem was Trump.
The other problem that Trump has is that Clinton has answered those questions 200 times or more and pretty much owns them. There is no shock value to them and people know what she is going to say. And she has had months upon months to prepare to deal with those questions and move on. Trump has never answered the questions about Birtherism or his taxes in any way that makes sense and comes up with new excuses each time.
|
Someone said Trump "blew up" at reporters on the way out of the debate. Is this true and can be confirmed or just rumor?
I didn't see the 1st part of the debate initially where Trump looked better. Seeing that it is not as bad as I initially thought but still it got pretty bad after the 1st part.
|
On September 28 2016 01:03 biology]major wrote:Show nested quote +On September 28 2016 00:58 Mohdoo wrote:On September 28 2016 00:54 biology]major wrote:In all the above points, the opening for Mrs Clinton's advantage was set by the moderator. He first brought up Mr Trump's taxes. He asked about the Obama "birther" controversy. He pushed Mr Trump on the Iraq War and brought up his comment about her "look", which led to the extended discussion of presidential temperament and judgement. Mrs Clinton's weaknesses - particularly her use of a private email server and potential conflicts of interest in her charitable foundation - were barely discussed.
If the winner of political conflict is dictated by the ground on which it is fought, then most of the debate was contested on terrain that was favourable to the Democrat. Some of that was her own effective strategy and preparation; the lawyer's advantage. Some of it was Mr Trump's missteps and meandering; the salesman's failure to move his product.
A lot of it, however, was Holt's doing. That will have Democrats smiling and Trump supporters howling. holt factorThis was my assessment as well, good prep from clinton, poor prep from trump, biased moderation. Not biased. 100% unbiased that happen to be extremely terrible for Trump. The issues asked of Trump would be gigantic issues to any other candidate. Holt treated Trump like any other candidate. Refusal to release taxes in a modern day election is nothing short of lunacy. Clinton, Romney, McCain would all be hung for a refusal to release tax returns or to question the birthplace of the president. Holt was able to realize they are running for the same job. That's cool, I have no issue with asking trump hard questions. What I do have an issue with is not offering the same hard questions to clinton. He basically praised her when he pulled the woman card, and didn't bring up her weaknesses. Oh well it all falls on deaf ears, or blind eyes in this case.
The difference is that Clinton knew how to: A) Accept something as it was, or B) Deflect with a simple answer.
Trump insisted on doubling down on every minor criticism. Tax returns and the birth certificate aren't even softball pitch questions, it's a Tee Ball with a training bat. If you somehow screw that up, it's your own fault.
|
On September 28 2016 01:03 biology]major wrote:Show nested quote +On September 28 2016 00:58 Mohdoo wrote:On September 28 2016 00:54 biology]major wrote:In all the above points, the opening for Mrs Clinton's advantage was set by the moderator. He first brought up Mr Trump's taxes. He asked about the Obama "birther" controversy. He pushed Mr Trump on the Iraq War and brought up his comment about her "look", which led to the extended discussion of presidential temperament and judgement. Mrs Clinton's weaknesses - particularly her use of a private email server and potential conflicts of interest in her charitable foundation - were barely discussed.
If the winner of political conflict is dictated by the ground on which it is fought, then most of the debate was contested on terrain that was favourable to the Democrat. Some of that was her own effective strategy and preparation; the lawyer's advantage. Some of it was Mr Trump's missteps and meandering; the salesman's failure to move his product.
A lot of it, however, was Holt's doing. That will have Democrats smiling and Trump supporters howling. holt factorThis was my assessment as well, good prep from clinton, poor prep from trump, biased moderation. Not biased. 100% unbiased that happen to be extremely terrible for Trump. The issues asked of Trump would be gigantic issues to any other candidate. Holt treated Trump like any other candidate. Refusal to release taxes in a modern day election is nothing short of lunacy. Clinton, Romney, McCain would all be hung for a refusal to release tax returns or to question the birthplace of the president. Holt was able to realize they are running for the same job. That's cool, I have no issue with asking trump hard questions. What I do have an issue with is not offering the same hard questions to clinton. He basically praised her when he pulled the woman card, and didn't bring up her weaknesses. Oh well it all falls on deaf ears, or blind eyes in this case.
So when Clinton says "Yes, the email situation is bad. It was my fault. I take full responsibility and I would not make that decision again", what is a moderator supposed to say?
"You are sorry? Well go fuck yourself. Don't you feel guilty? Shouldn't you be in prison?"
I mean really, what is the moderator supposed to do? What if he asked about Benghazi? There's ELEVEN HOURS OF TESTIMONY straight from Clinton's mouth freely available. The issue has been exhausted. Have you watched any appreciable amount of the Benghazi hearings? What details do you think were left out? Why do you think they stopped asking her to testify?
|
On September 28 2016 01:06 Slaughter wrote:
Someone said Trump "blew up" at reporters on the way out of the debate. Is this true and can be confirmed or just rumor?
I didn't see the 1st part of the debate initially where Trump looked better. Seeing that it is not as bad as I initially thought but still it got pretty bad after the 1st part.
Its telling he cant keep his composure for more then 10 minutes.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
