patrick.net

errc says

What were you watching? Trump certainly did a better job than Clinton. Everyone knows this

Everyone knows this? Er, obviously not as a cursory glance at the polls etc. tells you. I watched the debate. Overall, and as with the other 2 debates, he was soundly beaten on the details. But hey, we know that you pretended to be a Sanders supporter on here and have now 'suddenly' morphed into a lover of Trump and a hater of anything and everything to do with Clinton, so paint me unsurprised by your comment.

Rashomon says

He did a decent enough job for the first 30 minutes or so. After that, he went way off the deep end. That bit about not confirming he will accept the result was pathetic.

Basically the first 30 min he was respectful, then he savaged Clinton and exposed her for the corrupt lying hag she is-so it must seem like that to you.

lostand confused says

Basically the first 30 min he was respectful, then he savaged Clinton and exposed her for the corrupt lying hag she is-so it must seem like that to you.

No, in the first 30 mins he pretended that he could take a swipe at addressing the issues in the manner that it should be done in such a debate. The rest of it demonstrated the reality that he is entirely unprepared for the demands of being President and is simply a petulant and thin-skinned man-child who is way out of his depth.

Rashomon says

The rest of it demonstrated the reality that he is entirely unprepared for the demands of being President and is simply a petulant and thin-skinned man-child who is way out of his depth

project away. He exposed the lying corrupt hag-so the lefties resort to their usual SJW tactics-because just like their Dear leader-their brains short-circuits. Now we know the lefties actually paid people to do SJW tactics and the chief guy for the voter fraud from Chicago visited the White House 300+ times. What a web we weave.

www.youtube.com/embed/Y69tkCbeC5o

lostand confused says

project away. He exposed the lying corrupt hag-so the lefties resort to their usual SJW tactics-because just like their Dear leader-their brains short-circuits. Now we know the lefties actually paid people to do SJW tactics and the chief guy for the voter fraud from Chicago visited the White House 300+ times. What a web we weave.

Exposed her how? He exposed himself (once again) to be the childish and intellectually inadequate demagogue that he so clearly is.

Rashomon says

Exposed her how? He exposed himself (once again) to be the childish and intellectually inadequate demagogue that he so clearly is.

Feel free to actually respond with some meaningful content.

Rashomon says

Feel free to actually respond with some meaningful conte

When you post something meaningful and not talk like a broken record.

Rashomon says

errc says

What were you watching? Trump certainly did a better job than Clinton. Everyone knows this

Everyone knows this? Er, obviously not as a cursory glance at the polls etc. tells you. I watched the debate. Overall, and as with the other 2 debates, he was soundly beaten on the details. But hey, we know that you pretended to be a Sanders supporter on here and have now 'suddenly' morphed into a lover of Trump and a hater of anything and everything to do with Clinton, so paint me unsurprised by your comment.

Take you Wahibbi propaganda back to your homeland. Anyone with a brain can see Trump drubbed her

#feelthebern

lostand confused says

When you post something meaningful and not talk like a broken record.

Yawn, so you can't explain your claims. Predictable. Anyway, you and the rest of your ilk seem to think he won all the debates and the polls are all rigged, so presumably he'll win the election at a canter and you can all gloat on here at your leisure. I suppose we'll just have to wait and see.

errc says

Take you Wahibbi propaganda back to your homeland. Anyone with a brain can see Trump drubbed her

#feelthebern

More brain fart nonsense from our resident pretend Bernie supporter.

Uh oh, Ratfink is #triggered by the truth!

errc says

Uh oh, Ratfink is #triggered by the truth!

What truth would that be? That you were never an actual Bernie supporter? Have an IQ of 150 but can't string together a coherent argument?

Rashomon says

errc says

Uh oh, Ratfink is #triggered by the truth!

What truth would that be? That you were never an actual Bernie supporter? Have an IQ of 150 but can't string together a coherent argument?

Nice. Resort to lies like the good little Clinton lemming you are

errc says

Nice. Resort to lies like the good little Clinton lemming you are

Yeah, of course, because hell, you only leaped from being a supposedly massive Bernie supporter to being love struck at anything Trump says. Sure, sure. Has the real ring of truth and thoughtful consideration expected of someone with an IQ of 150.

Somehow, you dumb twits equate objective criticism of Hillary, as support for Trump.

In your tiny box, what do you expect liberals and progressives that voted for Bernie, to do?

Sure, sure, which is of course why you say things like Trump drubbed her in that debate when he obviously did no such thing. I can't honestly remember you ever criticising something that Trump has said despite the litany of offensive comments he's made. But, hell, Clinton just needs to wake up in the morning and you're in attack mode.
And what do I expect Bernie supporting liberals and progressives to do? Not spend their entire time attacking a candidate who is more in line with their supposed beliefs than Trump will ever be whilst simultaneously turning a completely blind eye to all the inflammatory bullshit he throws around at will.

Oh alt-Marcus account #3, do tell, how you feel that Clinton is the candidate in line with my beliefs?

Typical liberal viewpoint...

Rew says

George Takei:

"I hear the bathrooms

errc says

Oh alt-Marcus account #3, do tell, how you feel that Clinton is the candidate in line with my beliefs?

I'm not Marcus. And I'm not saying Clinton is in line with your beliefs. I'm saying I believe that you lied about being a Bernie supporter given your constant attacks on Clinton and the fact we never hear a squeak from you against Trump. But hey, do you really want me to explain why an actual real-life Bernie supporter should be more in line with Clinton than Trump? Maybe you could just ask the man himself...

No.
He just has a color tv...

Rashomon says

lostand confused says

Yeah, he won. He did his job-which was to look Presidential.

You must have been watching a different debate to everyone who isn't a Trump apologist.

Rashomon says

errc says

Oh alt-Marcus account #3, do tell, how you feel that Clinton is the candidate in line with my beliefs?

I'm not Marcus. And I'm not saying Clinton is in line with your beliefs. I'm saying I believe that you lied about being a Bernie supporter given your constant attacks on Clinton and the fact we never hear a squeak from you against Trump. But hey, do you really want me to explain why an actual real-life Bernie supporter should be more in line with Clinton than Trump? Maybe you could just ask the man himself...

That's rich. You lie, and then call me a liar.

And Bernie attacked Hillary to the bitter end, so I see why you're confused about my objective vetting and subsequent criticisms of Clinton.

errc says

That's rich. You lie, and then call me a liar.

Er, what did I lie about? Are you referring to your Marcus comment? I'm obviously not Marcus. I'd have thought someone with an IQ of 150 might be able to notice that our writing style is entirely different.

errc says

And Bernie attacked Hillary to the bitter end, so I see why you're confused about my objective vetting and subsequent criticisms of Clinton.

Amazing considering he was competing against her. Or not. Who's he endorsed now? And your objective vetting? Ha! Where's your objective vetting of Trump? Got lost somewhere, did it?

Marcus is the only poster to get all hot and bothered over my IQ. Also, it's something I mentioned once in passing years ago, so odd that you would even know that.

Are you sure Bernie endorsed Clinton? I guess I missed that, do you have a link?

Not sure what you need me to pile on with your ilk and the media blasting Trump 24/7...seems redundant and a waste of time.

Trump did well at first, kind of went off on tangents mid debate. Hillary was always avoiding talking about what she'll do, because she knows that her "private positions" are bad for everyone but her.

Hillary flat out promised to replace all middle class jobs with foreigners with STEM degrees, and she did not get called out on that at all. I suppose it didn't come up, or maybe just people don't realize they are getting fucked until after it'll happen.

Or maybe she didn't actually promise that at all?

FortWayne says

Hillary flat out promised to replace all middle class jobs with foreigners with STEM degrees

You're such a fucking idiot. Your stupidity used to be entertaining, like watching a millennial run into a lampost while texting; now it's just like watching the sun rise.

errc says

Marcus is the only poster to get all hot and bothered over my IQ. Also, it's something I mentioned once in passing years ago, so odd that you would even know that.

It's cropped up a few times on here in recent months - I no doubt read it when you and him were going at it.

errc says

Are you sure Bernie endorsed Clinton? I guess I missed that, do you have a link?

http://edition.cnn.com/2016/07/11/politics/hillary-clinton-bernie-sanders/

errc says

Not sure what you need me to pile on with your ilk and the media blasting Trump 24/7...seems redundant and a waste of time.

And this site isn't a constant stream of attacks on Clinton? Seems redundant you chipping in as well. Perhaps you could point out now and again how ridiculous some of the anti-Clinton claims are - the 4.7/5.7% (whatever the figure is today) Clinton Foundation falsehood springs to mind as a transparently obvious lie that is repeated ad nauseam on here. Bit of balance, seeing as you are saying you don't support either candidate.

Pointless arguing here over who won. By tomorrow or Mon all the polling data will be in on debate impressions.

I don't think anyone watching would claim a 6+ bump is possible for Trump off it, to close the gap. That would mean a decisive victory in combination with a Hillary blunder. A typical vanilla win is 3+.

Bottom line is every day that passes is a day closer to the rise of the dark queen. Bad hombres and nasty women are rejoicing. Sorry deplorables.

What's ridiculous s how a supposed charity only uses something like 6% of their money for actual charitable work. This needs to be investigated for fraud, among other things.

Rew says

Pointless arguing here over who won

True, since IMO the target audience is undecided voters, so our collective opinion doesn't count.

zzyzzx is deplorable says

What's ridiculous s how a supposed charity only uses something like 6% of their money for actual charitable work. This needs to be investigated for fraud, among other things.

What's ludicrous is that you are still peddling that line when it's a blatant lie. 5.7% is given to other charities. The Clinton Foundation, despite its name, functions as a charity - the programs are run in house - constituting the other 80%+ of spending. Seriously, how exactly do you think it would get an A rating from charity watchers (and 95% from the site, Charity Navigator, mentioned in your linked article) if it was only using 6% of its donations? You're just embarrassing yourself at this point, but hey, I'll wait for your next repetition of this obvious and previously debunked lie - try any fact checking site you like if you aren't willing to accept what I am saying. Hell, read the tax returns - they clearly show you to be wrong. Try the 2014 one and scroll down to page 10 and then come back here and admit how stupid you've been. I won't hold my breath.

errc says

Somehow, you dumb twits equate objective criticism of Hillary, as support for Trump.

Your views on Hillary are not objective.

Let's pretend for a minute that Hillary is as bad as you say. If that were the case, you could focus on that entirely and be factually correct. However, wisdom would require that you also take an objective look at the other guy and come up with a balanced look at the race.

Just to reiterate - your views on Hillary are far from objective. You repeat the absolute worst of the conspiracy theories in spite of lots of evidence to the contrary.

Rashomon, save your keyboard. There is nothing rational over there with regards to feelings on Clinton or the foundation. It's dangerous wounded animal time. (Anger : stage one of denial.)

lostand confused says

This image appears to show one man taking a break from tossing another man's salad and shaking his head like a dog to dry the slobber off his face. Is this based on a scene from a Trump rally?

FortWayne says

Trump did well at first, kind of went off on tangents mid debate.

Here's a Trump supporter who isn't completely blind. I mean - based on the totality of your other posts, you are probably legally blind. But this somewhat fair, but generous, assessment of Trump's debate performances highlights the ironic truth:
#LoserDonald lacks the mental STAMINA to stand toe to toe with Her and keep focused for 90 minutes. He can fly around the country and rant all he wants, but he is too ADHD (I'm guessing that's his problem) to do serious work and has laughably little mental stamina. If he weren't such a narcissistic fool, he would just go get treatment.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/george-sachs-psyd/unfit-unfocused-or-is-tru_b_11568002.html

Rew says

I don't think anyone watching would claim a 6+ bump is possible for Trump off it

The biggest danger for Clinton is something like the Veritas project video gaining credence. I believe that people will be investigating this to corroborate, refute, or fill out this story.

There are also a few more weeks to go, so other things could happen.

Plus, #LoserDonald could pull off a surprise if he pulls close to Her but does not pass Her in the polls.

So, he doesn't really need a 6+ bump in the polls. Fortunately, I think polls will show that she won this debate handily. I'm surprised it was only by 13 pts according to this: http://www.cnn.com/2016/10/19/politics/hillary-clinton-wins-third-presidential-debate-according-to-cnn-orc-poll/index.html

Donald gets angry after a few public jabs in the national spotlight. Always has.

The majority of his campaign has been reactionary ... both in policy, message, and campaign. He reacts.

YesY, I agree. The gap isn't big enough to consider Clinton home free. In an election where the news cycle is rocked almost daily there are still a number of days left. You are very right.

Clinton's race to lose still, and I think more ground was gained from last night.

Project Veritas is going to wither under scrutiny.

When #LoserDonald claimed that all of the accusers are lying, I couldn't help but wonder how many more women are sitting on the fence about going public with their story. Will his latest attacks make more come forward in defense of the victims?

Another woman has stepped up to accuse Donald of groping this morning.
http://people.com/politics/new-accuser-tearfully-alleges-trump-assaulted-her-at-u-s-open-he-said-dont-you-know-who-i-am/