Renzatic on 20/10/2016 at 02:55
First off, Chris Wallace should've moderated all three of the debates. He kept that shit IN LINE!
Quick impressions?
By the way she so very awkwardly dodged the question in her response, turning it into what basically amounted to an advertisement done under pressure, it's all but obvious that she did use her position as Secretary of State to give sweetheart deals to favored donators within the Clinton Foundation. She purposefully stoked a direct conflict of interest, and it does not make her look good.
...but compared to Trump, who wants to abandon all our allies to their own fates, doesn't seem to understand exactly how our economy works, and may or may not start a riot were he to lose the election Nov. 8th (WE'LL FIND OUT), some blatant quid pro quo over intragovernment charity contracts doesn't seem all that bad in comparison.
Vae on 20/10/2016 at 03:15
I agree...Chris Wallace did an excellent job as moderator.
Jason Moyer on 20/10/2016 at 03:31
Looked like Trump was going to hold it together and that it was going to be a draw until Clinton mentioned Putin, then Trump went into his usual total meltdown mode. I don't see any way they can spin his refusal to say he'll accept the election results or the comment about Hillary being a nasty woman. Early post-debate polls have it 49-39 Clinton.
Of course, a draw wouldn't have really helped him since he's getting roundly thumped across the board right now. He needed a convincing win to sway the polls in any meaningful way this close to the election.
Renzatic on 20/10/2016 at 03:49
His refusal to even entertain the possibility that Russia was behind the hacks, claiming that our entire intelligence apparatus is wrong on that matter, then trying to spin it all with a "I don't know the guy", didn't help at all.
The fact his own vice presidential candidate has gone on record saying that Russia is involved in some shape, form, or fashion surely won't do him any favors.
He really shit the bucket on this one. He was weak on the first, strong on the second, and reduced to an on-the-defensive excuse generator for this one.
nickie on 20/10/2016 at 09:58
I also thought Trump was doing quite well until, predictably, he lost the plot again and showed himself up. No matter how much people hate Clinton, I just don't see how people can think he's a suitable person for president. He's a nutter.
Nicker on 20/10/2016 at 12:59
In order to stay out of the danger zone, Trump would need constant monitoring and intervention. He can't even rule his own emotions, let alone a country.
[video=youtube;OXR1Fe9Fazw]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OXR1Fe9Fazw[/video]
Vivian on 20/10/2016 at 13:08
Quote Posted by Vae
Trump was triumphant!
You're going to have to explain this one to me, because I watched this, and I swear blind he got absolutely handled.
Renault on 20/10/2016 at 13:56
You're surprised by the super fantastic Vae spin machine?
I wonder if he'll post here anymore once Trump gets stomped on election day.
nickie on 20/10/2016 at 14:24
I have a question. Do people believe that a change of government will make a significant difference to their lives? Would Trump really provide those jobs he says he will?
Edit. Elaboration - all governments campaigning for election promise stuff. Do they ever really deliver? Isn't it unrealistic to expect things to change with a change of government?
I've lived under 3 Labour, 4 Conservatives and 1 Coalition government and I can't say I've noticed any change to my circumstances in that time. I know some people who would say they did better under the Tories but they were people with a reasonable amount of money. Joe Bloggs and I don't appear to move up or down the ladder much.
