Debate Monday

[sundaydriver]

This Holt clown is very likely rejected by Trump due to that being the case IMHO.
I'LL BET A DAMN DOLLAR TO A DONUT THAT AFTER THE DEBATE WE WILL SEE HOW AND WHAT TRAPS WERE SET TO DAMAGE TRUMP AS WELL AS WHAT ADVANTAGES WERE PUT IN PLACE TO LIFT AND EXALT THE FFING HILDABEAST.---TYR[/QUOTE]

]Nothing like a bag full of excuses out there before the debate even starts! He's a Dem, if I lose it's fixed, everyone loves me except all that hate me, whaaaaa!

As in, why admit the clear truth of my words..
As in--how the hildabeast has taken responsibility for her words and even here fatal actions!??
Do tell, if you are ever brave enough to speak the truth..-Tyr

Brave enough to respond on the internet or what you call truth? That I don't like Trump doesn't mean I think any better of Clinton just because I don't stoop to always name calling and disparagement of people I don't agree with. What I remarked on was about Trump not Hillary, so no mention of her, understand?


[QUOTE=Tyr-Ziu Saxnot;834138]I'd lay 20 to 1 odds that Hillary and her team have the questions to be asked and are prepared with her "canned answers", whereas Trump has no such info.. given ahead of show time...
Additionally, this Holt scum has been briefed on every trap set to trip Trump up and has been ordered/commanded/paid to help the Hildabeast in any possible way that he can...
Anybody that thinks his being chosen isn't a fix in itself, is not playing with a full deck...-Tyr[/QUOTE

Even more whining!


Lester Holt was accepted by both candidates and is only going to facilitate the debate not referee it. He can ask a follow up question though if he feels one or the other skirts or misrepresents their previous statements.

The rules for the debate have been worked out and accepted by both side ahead of time along with the Debate Commission. We only know about the NO FACT CHECK because Trump brought it up in an Interview and NO Holt is not handing out questions to either side before hand.

[sundaydriver]

AND he works for NBC

A KNOWN shill for the Hildabeast

You know what I love? After calling out Holt for being a Democrat when he's not, Trump didn't correct himself or apologize for saying it's in the tank cause Holt's a Dem, all that was done was put Conway out there to release this: Donald Trump's campaign manager, Kellyanne Conway, says Trump's comment that Lester Holt is a Democrat isn't a lie because the candidate didn't know Holt's voter registration.

Which means-the Trump campaign is *literally* defending Trump by saying that he's an ignoramus, not a liar. . "Don't call our candidate a liar he simply doesn't know or care to know the facts. That's not the same thing as being a liar." Sad huh!

You can't make this stuff up and is the whole crux as to why I would never support such a person for any important position.

[jimnyc]

What subjects/questions would you like to hear - that you don't think you'll hear? I think Hillary gets off light in this department.

Bill, and his never ending "dicking bimbos", and why does she support such, or ignore it?
The few alleged rapes?
Benghazi again, and why she lied to the specific mother in question?
There are endless questions that can be asked about her endless lies she's been busted in about her email server.
Her and Bill ripping off the WH on the way out - and their damaging as well.
Clinton Foundation - pay for play
Does she truly not understand classified material?
Her health, of which has been a huge factor in the past month
Her and her teams lying again about her health
Her lying in general, WHY should she be trusted when busted lying so many times

That it? Probably MUCH more, but she probably won't answer anyway, at least not a one truthfully.

[jimnyc]

Twelve Debate Questions That Hillary Clinton Should Be Ready For

1. Can you identify three policy areas or decisions on which you have differed strongly from President Obama?

Notes: An easy answer might be the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade agreement, though that could get her into flip-flopping territory if not handled adroitly, since she spoke favorably of it while in the Obama Administration but opposes it now. An answer that is important but nuanced would involve Syria.

Possible follow-up: While serving as Secretary of State, where do you think that you personally made the biggest difference in the Administration’s direction?

2. If you are elected, four out of the five most recent Presidents will have been from two families. Is that healthy for American democracy?

Notes: It’s a legitimate question, so Clinton shouldn’t be dismissive. She might convey that she has considered the question herself, but that’s she’s proud of her family’s tradition of public service and that each election is a unique cast of characters. The trick would be to formulate those two thoughts without sounding either entitled or like the lesser evil. She might indicate that part of why she’s running is to open the highest levels of American politics to a whole new field of people—i.e., women.

Bonus hint: Don’t compare yourself to F.D.R., who followed his cousin Theodore, or talk about how great it would have been if Eleanor had run to succeed him—even if it would have been.

3. What did you learn from Bernie Sanders during the primary campaign?

Notes: Yes, this question has a condescending tinge to it. But it’s also an opportunity to talk to Sanders’s supporters. Seize it. The right answer involves the wonder of a new generation that is ready for dramatic, not incremental, change. The wrong answer is a talking-to about how incremental change is better, and about how young people didn’t have the proper information to understand that she was better for them.

Possible follow-up: This might also be a time to clarify just what minimum-wage increase she wants and thinks is wise—not just what she’d be willing to sign.

4. Do young women who don’t support you just not understand how hard it used to be?

Notes: The answer is no; chastisement didn’t work well when Madeleine Albright or Gloria Steinem tried it, and it would succeed even less so here.

Possible follow-up: Looking back on the way the press and some of your own supporters—and possibly you yourself—treated and talked about women who were connected to your husband, and were called bimbos and stalkers, do you have any regrets or reflections? If Trump mentions Monica Lewinsky, Gennifer Flowers (whom he has threatened to invite), Juanita Broaddrick, et al., it will likely be in this way: pushing the idea that Hillary was Bill’s misogynistic enabler. She needs to be ready. But, apart from that, it might be an opportunity to show some human empathy, if she can bring herself to take it. Lewinsky really was treated poorly by people in both parties and by the press.

5. Would you see a problem in Chelsea Clinton soliciting large sums of money for the Clinton Foundation if you are President?

The debate might be a good time to announce that Chelsea will step down as vice-chair of the Clinton Foundation if her mother is elected.

6. You’ve said that you have never changed your vote on anything because of money—speaking fees, foundation contributions, campaign donations. Why do you think people gave that money?

By all means, use this as an opportunity to talk about the Clinton Foundation’s good works. But don’t be glib about the rest. Don’t chant some variation of “everybody does it”—that’s exactly what voters have a problem with. At all costs, avoid a repeat of the “that’s what they offered” answer, given in response to Anderson Cooper’s town-hall question about why she took large speaking fees from Goldman Sachs.

Possible follow-up: Is the presence of a quid pro quo the test, or can the presence of money be more subtly corrupting? How she answers this may help determine how credible the Democratic Party is as a force for campaign-finance reform.

7. A couple of weeks ago, you said that half of Donald Trump’s supporters fall into a “basket of deplorables,” and referred to them as “irredeemable.” Later, you said, “I regret saying ‘half’—that was wrong.” What is the correct fraction?

Notes: Clinton can hedge as much as she likes on quantifying “deplorables,” but she could say that the number of “irredeemables” is zero. In this world and in this election, no one is irredeemable.

Possible follow-up: What’s the answer to the puzzle she posed, last week, at a union gathering: “Why aren’t I fifty points ahead?” At that event, she suggested that she might be if her supporters told their neighbors the facts. For the debate, she needs to answer this in a way that does not imply that her voters are just smarter than certain other people’s voters. Also, see notes on “deplorables,” above.

8. Do you still support a no-fly zone over Syria? What moves would you take if the Russians violated it?

Notes: It’s O.K. to subtly use this and other questions as a reminder that Trump has said very odd things about Vladimir Putin—but not at the expense of a straight answer.

Possible follow-up: You’ve said that the public should know that there will not be any American ground troops in Syria. What about the special-operations teams now on the ground? (This is partly a reminder to avoid what sounds like overly legalistic linguistic parsing.)

9. As President, will you commit to closing the Guantánamo Bay prison?

Notes: See Connie Bruck’s piece on Clinton’s principled support for—but practical ambivalence about—closing the facility.

Possible follow-up: President Obama wanted to close Guantánamo. Why do you think he failed? Republican obstruction, or realizing that the world is little more complicated than he thought when he was running against you in 2008 and charming all those crowds? See Question 1, above, for some guidance on this.

10. Before he leaves office, should President Obama pardon Edward Snowden?

Notes: The big warning label on this one is that some of the crimes Snowden might be charged with—exposing classified information—are in the same territory as Clinton’s extended e-mail drama. (And it should go without saying that she must have a clear, non-defensive answer on that.) Also, see above on not letting the desire to mention Putin as often as possible hijack answers to serious questions. Those caveats aside, this might be one of the few questions where it’s all right to sound like a lawyer—mentioning, for example, a plea deal that would involve some accountability, rather than the only options being a long prison sentence or a free pass. Or she might answer by anticipating the . . .

Possible follow-up: Did you, personally, learn anything from the Snowden leaks? The answer should be yes—about the disconnect between the public’s expectation of privacy and the government’s practices, if nothing else.

11. If you lose the election, what will you say to the American people on the morning after about the legitimacy of the process?

Notes: The answer has to be that we are the greatest, freest country in the world, and that we still will be on that morning. Don’t call the American people dupes. Don’t say that your opponent is cheating. Express your trust in the instruments of American democracy—which you will fully engage with, rather than retreating to Chappaqua—to see us through. If Trump wins, one of the many great dangers is that the country will be plunged into an era in which its political discourse becomes a tangle of conspiracy theories. Don’t contribute to it.

Possible follow-up: Will it have all been the media’s fault? The answer is no. Take responsibility as a candidate.

12. Why did you go to Donald Trump’s wedding?

Maybe it was fun, as Clinton has said before. Don’t cite his support for the Clinton Foundation—that is to say, don’t make it about money. Too much of this election already is.

http://www.newyorker.com/news/amy-da...cid=mod-latest

[jimnyc]

How Trump can knock out Hillary in the first debate

It promises to be the greatest show on earth: the first presidential debate to be held Monday night at Hofstra University in New York. Rarely has a political event attracted this kind of Super Bowl-level excitement, curiosity and anticipation. Then again, rarely have we had two presidential candidates who light up the political sky like Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton.

Mrs. Clinton has been on the national scene for nearly 30 years and carries all of the baggage of those tumultuous decades: endless scandals, ethical tightrope-walking, legal dodge ball, compulsive lying, slimy blame-shifting, bunker paranoia, the systematic selling of her offices for personal enrichment and the deliberate jeopardizing of the nation’s most sensitive secrets for her family’s gain.

She is like Pig Pen in the “Peanuts” cartoon: surrounded constantly by a cloud of corruption.

Viewers will want to see how this dangerous mess interacts with her opponent, who is clearly a political chess champion despite having just begun to play. It’s going to be Pig Pen versus the Master of the Universe.

We know what Mrs. Clinton will do, which is what she’s always done: lie, fabricate, deflect and distract. Boring and predictable.

Donald Trump, on the other hand, is neither — and he has the advantage of being shiny and new. What he does with that opportunity is anyone’s guess. I suspect he’s been rope-a-doping everybody with the “we’re not doing debate prep, we’re just hanging out eating cheeseburgers” line and will, in fact, knock out Mrs. Clinton with his command of policy, her long record of failure and the positive agenda he embraces.

For a full TKO, Mr. Trump should do four main things.

First, he should emphasize his pragmatic vision for turning America around: moving to pro-growth economics, restoring law and order, rebuilding the military and a strong national defense, reigniting America’s influence and prestige internationally, and defeating the corrupt, rigged system (as embodied by Mrs. Clinton).

As a successful presidential candidate, he must offer voters a positive, compelling reason to vote for him, rather than just against his opponent. That’s why it’s critical for Mr. Trump to focus on his restorative agenda for the country.

Second, as a compliment to his optimistic vision, he must smash Mrs. Clinton, both as a failed “leader” pushing failed policies and a destructive leftist ideology and as a deeply corrupt individual who cannot — must not — be trusted with the presidency.

She will try to swarm him with policy details to try to demonstrate that he’s unprepared for the highest office in the land. She’ll try to sit above the fray, winking that she’s “been there, done that.” Well, yes. But the question is not whether she was in the game. It’s how she played it — and what results she produced. For her, the result was evermore power and a net worth of over $125 million. For the country, the result is that we are less wealthy, less prosperous, less safe, less secure, less powerful.

Mr. Trump doesn’t have to show an encyclopedic knowledge of every policy nuance. He simply has to point to the wreckage of the Obama economy and foreign policy and say: “We tried it your way.”

Mic drop.

Third, he should “gaslight” her (hat tip to Alfred Hitchcock) by remaining totally cool and unflappable while calmly pushing on her vulnerabilities, from her disgraceful lack of integrity to her hypocrisy concerning women to standing by silently if she’s seized by one of her interminable coughing attacks.

This must be done with the greatest care, taking the Reagan approach of regarding her more in sorrow than in anger: “There you go again.” And he should call her Mrs. Clinton in order to link her to the deeply flawed boy who brought her to the dance.

For all of the talk about Mr. Trump’s alleged “thin skin,” she is extraordinarily prickly. She has never faced a tough election fight or been questioned aggressively or criticized to her face. If Mr. Trump can get under her thin skin, he could provoke a caustic response that will reveal the cosseted elitist behind the frozen smile. Witness candidate Barack Obama’s calmly delivered 2008 crack, “You’re likeable enough, Hillary.” The steam came out of her ears for days.

Finally, Mr. Trump must be a happy warrior. Most voters want to believe that he’s the guy not just to fix the country — but to restore their optimism with it. They want to know that he will fight the war for America’s future not as a burden but as a joyful privilege. If he can exuberantly convey that America can be saved — and that she is worth saving — he will not just win the debate but perhaps the election.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...y-clinton-in-/

[Perianne]

Pig-Pen, lol.

[jimnyc]

Pig-Pen, lol.

I've always loved Pig Pen!! Having him compared to the political pig sucks, as now I may think of her every time I see his cute little gross body gliding across the screen!

[sundaydriver]

What subjects/questions would you like to hear - that you don't think you'll hear? I think Hillary gets off light in this department.

Bill, and his never ending "dicking bimbos", and why does she support such, or ignore it?
The few alleged rapes?
Benghazi again, and why she lied to the specific mother in question?
There are endless questions that can be asked about her endless lies she's been busted in about her email server.
Her and Bill ripping off the WH on the way out - and their damaging as well.
Clinton Foundation - pay for play
Does she truly not understand classified material?
Her health, of which has been a huge factor in the past month
Her and her teams lying again about her health
Her lying in general, WHY should she be trusted when busted lying so many times

That it? Probably MUCH more, but she probably won't answer anyway, at least not a one truthfully.

What I don't want is wasting time on rehashing of the old stuff even though it matters as to trust & ethics. We've already formed our opinions on these and heard all the lies & excuses.

Foreign Policy, domestic policy & problems, economy and how to pay for them, not platitudes or wishful thinking. I want to hear real ideas about the future of America & it's position in the world.

[jimnyc]

What I don't want is a rehash of the old stuff even though some of it matters as to trust. I don't want bimbo's or blood coming from everywhere. As important as Bengasi or emails. All the things tat have been done to death.

Foreign Policy, domestic policy & problems, economy and how to pay for them, not platitudes or wishful thinking. I want to hear real ideas about the future of America & it's position in the world.

I certainly see no issue with that at all. I would like to see just that, perhaps spot on for maybe like 70 minutes? But I also wouldn't mind seeing her nailed to the wall and asked the questions that seem to either never get asked - or watching her wiggle in front of such a massive audience.

[jimnyc]

Ten Points Trump Needs To Make Tonight

1) That none of Hillary's name-calling is true. By his answers and demeanor show that he is not: sexist, racist, deplorable, reckless, unpredictable, buffoon, homophobe, Islamaphobe. Once he shows he is a reasonable person, all of Hillary's negative ads go away.

2) He needs to say that Hillary used a secret e-mail server to cover up the pay-for-play operations of the Clinton Foundation and Bill's speeches. He should demand that Hillary promise to close the Foundation if she is elected. It's not enough to leave Bill or Chelsea in charge. And she should also pledge that neither Bill nor Chelsea will take speaking fees while she is in office.

3) He should demand the release of the Charlotte videotape of the police shooting so we get the facts and can find out the truth of what happened. Until then, we must keep an open mind.

4) He should say that school choice is the civil rights issue of our time and that it is the only way to stop schools from reflecting the racial segregation and ghettoization of our communities.

5) He needs to say that New York City was hit by terrorists because they closed the Demographics Unit that monitored Muslims and Muslim neighborhoods. They gave the goal the night off and, after the unit stopped 20 separate plots since 9-11, it wasn't around to stop the 21st.

6) He must make explicit the correlation between stopping refugees from terrorist areas and preventing future attacks. He should blast Obama's announcement that he will admit 110,000 more refugees this year and say they could and probably will be seeded with enough terrorists to hold our nation on edge for years.

7) He needs to stress that ObamaCare is crashing of its own weight. Most of the newly insured people are coming in through Medicaid, basically welfare. He should urge ending the mandatory aspects of the program but keeping the provisions for portability and no termination or premium increases when you get sick. He should say Hillary will move to government run medicine which she has always really supported.

8) Hillary is getting all the Wall Street money; she and Bill reaped massive speaking fees and Foundation donations from banks right after Bill deregulated the banks and paved the way of the '07-'08 meltdown. He should pledge to reinstate Glass-Steagall.

9) Hillary should take and release an MRI exam. Risk of dementia in a president is not one the nation can afford.

10) Hillary will flip on TPP once elected and cannot be trusted to protect American jobs. Challenge her to say NAFTA has hurt America now that our trade deficit with Mexico increased from a surplus of 1.6 billion in 1993 (the year before NAFTA) to a deficit of $61 billion in 2015.

http://www.newsmax.com/DickMorris/Di.../26/id/750129/

[Abbey Marie]

I don't know Lester Holt, but especially this year, it is not unheard of for Dems to register Republican to vote in their state's primary. Just sayin'.

[Abbey Marie]

I certainly see no issue with that at all. I would like to see just that, perhaps spot on for maybe like 70 minutes? But I also wouldn't mind seeing her nailed to the wall and asked the questions that seem to either never get asked - or watching her wiggle in front of such a massive audience.

Fine, but I would like to see Hillary take a drug test before the debate, and have the results read aloud during it. I'd also like to see her in shorts and a t-shirt, so we can see if she is indeed wearing any medical devices.

Oh, and hook her up to a lie detector during the debate.

[jimnyc]

I don't know Lester Holt, but especially this year, it is not unheard of for Dems to register Republican to vote in their state's primary. Just sayin'.

It won't be so easy to play little games tonight, with potentially 100 million watching. Everything will be magnified x100.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

What I don't want is wasting time on rehashing of the old stuff even though it matters as to trust & ethics. We've already formed our opinions on these and heard all the lies & excuses.

Foreign Policy, domestic policy & problems, economy and how to pay for them, not platitudes or wishful thinking. I want to hear real ideas about the future of America & it's position in the world.

What I don't want is wasting time on rehashing of the old stuff even though it matters as to trust & ethics.

Well, no shit Sherlock..
Isnt that nice--give her a clean slate for her past-- I am very damn sure she wants the same damn thing Hoss.
And you stated that as if its not ridiculous and biased as hell in her favor...
So according to you just ignore ALL that points to matters of trust and ethics!
Well hell Hoss, whats left???
DO WE PRAY FOR A MIRACLE AND GET AN UNTRUSTWORTHY, TOTALLY UNETHICAL SELF-SERVING BITCH THAT
WILL MIRACULOUSLY BRING OUR EVERY DREAM COME TRUE???

SPOKEN LIKE A TRUE PIE IN THE SKY LIBERAL..

SO HISTORY,REALITY SHOULD BE TOSSED ASIDE IN ORDER TO GO FOR THE DREAM REALITY SO OFTEN LAUDED BY FFING LIBS..

You really, really take the damn cake!!!!
I'd laugh if this wasnt about such a serious matter..

That is about like back when my 5 year old daughter when found playing hide and seek would ask me to go away and pretend that Ididnt find her!!
Really????? --Tyr

[sundaydriver]

Well, no shit Sherlock..
Isnt that nice--give her a clean slate for her past-- I am very damn sure she wants the same damn thing Hoss.
And you stated that as if its not ridiculous and biased as hell in her favor...
So according to you just ignore ALL that points to matters of trust and ethics!
Well hell Hoss, whats left???
DO WE PRAY FOR A MIRACLE AND GET AN UNTRUSTWORTHY, TOTALLY UNETHICAL SELF-SERVING BITCH THAT
WILL MIRACULOUSLY BRING OUR EVERY DREAM COME TRUE???

SPOKEN LIKE A TRUE PIE IN THE SKY LIBERAL..

SO HISTORY,REALITY SHOULD BE TOSSED ASIDE IN ORDER TO GO FOR THE DREAM REALITY SO OFTEN LAUDED BY FFING LIBS..

You really, really take the damn cake!!!!
I'd laugh if this wasnt about such a serious matter..

That is about like back when my 5 year old daughter when found playing hide and seek would ask me to go away and pretend that Ididnt find her!!
Really????? --Tyr

What I don't want is wasting time on rehashing of the old stuff even though it matters as to trust & ethics. We've already formed our opinions on these and heard all the lies & excuses.

Foreign Policy, domestic policy & problems, economy and how to pay for them, not platitudes or wishful thinking. I want to hear real ideas about the future of America & it's position in the world.

I'm sure you left off the highlighted part only to suit your purpose.