There were two distinct debating styles on display last night on Sept 26, 2016.
How do you describe what in on?
I think that Trump disassembled after the beginning. The birther thing, his comments about paying taxes and his all his business acumen in planning to profit from the 2008 meltdown. What gets me is that all of his fans say to be tougher next time, bringing in to focus Bill Clinton's infidelities as if that is really relevant in this debate.
I am sure that theRight will find something to say to resurrect the dead and to give life to their fallen hero. However, the formula he is using is only good before rightwing GOP audiences, it will never do for the general electorate. He looked and acted tawdry, petty and generally unprepared for the pasting that he received.
Clearly, by the end of the night, Clinton won. Simply put, she prepared while Chump thought he could wing it. Too bad nobody in the audience started chanting "UNPREPARED! UNPREPARED!"
She stayed firm while He unraveled. Of course, he's spinning it as a win for his base, but he knows it.
I see the conspiracy goons that he attracts are doing their own spin. Denial runs deep with these colorful folks.
What did I tell you, excuses, excuses, excuses? Trump blames the microphone and the moderator for his pis* poor performance. The man a lily livered wimp, and a poor excuse for human being. 'His Expediency' is not my idea of presidential material. The Right is putting nails in its coffin by reminding everyone that they are not to be taken seriously. And we progressives will show them the cemetery on November 8th. Then they will need another plan.
After listening the two, one can easily identify that Hillary Clinton is going to be the next President of U.S.A. The christian ministries have another opinion they feel the prophecy says that Donald Trump will be the next President.
Gary Johnson 2012 ~ Make America SANE Again
Whichever of them won the debate, our country certainly isn't going to win this election. Depressing all around.
The criteria for determining who won this debate is obviously controversial. My initial impression was that Trump was rather obnoxious and Hillary had an attitude. Trump didn't really have much tact but Hillary's answers were way too rehearsed. I could follow Hillary better but her condescension was distracting. The debate questions seemed kind of biased, not sure if it was just me or not.
I hate both candidates so it was amusing at best. I left feeling like I had just watched an extended campaign ad of bs.
Trump debated two Democrats last night and the polls are showing that he kicked both of their butts.
(BTW: Holt has registered as a Republican in New York since 2003.)
Holt dropped his conservative card at the door to the debate.
Benghazi is settled by 12 GOP led inquisitions; she was not responsible and did what she could
The emails were talked about, she said she shouldn't have done that.
Clinton Foundation - legit topic
Clinton Iraq War Vote - fair game
Hillary's Crimes - He can't ask about something that doesn't exist. Maybe he should ask if she stopped beating her mother as well
Hillary's Health and Donald's narcissism are legitimate questions.
Syrian refugees are also a good questions
But it goes to show how unprepared Trump was in that HE didn't bring them up.
1) Lester Holt is a Republican
2) Lester Holt barely said a word other than ask a question and twice trying to get Trump to admit to the truth.
Lester Holt is a republican? And what do you think the NEVER TRUMPERS are...REPUBLICANS As usual your reasoning is absurd. He is in the liberal media who would eviscerate him if he didn't shill for Hillary just like they did Jimmy Fallon and Matt Lauer for being fair to Trump.
Hillary's Jester, Lester Holt was the only real winner in this debate.
Lester Holt had his “Candy Crowley” moment on Monday night, bowing to pressure from the Hillary Clinton campaign and the liberal media by “fact-checking” Republican nominee Donald Trump on the question of his support for the Iraq War.
Holt lived down to the worst expectations of conservatives, who routinely see Republican candidates treated unfairly by debate moderators.
Again and again, Holt asked Trump tough questions that were straight from the Clinton campaign’s talking points, and which were obvious set-ups for Clinton to attack (and for fact-checkers to pounce on whatever Trump asserted in his own defense).
Here are the five worst examples, only the worst.
(1) Tax returns. Holt never asked Clinton about her e-mail scandal, about Benghazi, or about the Clinton Foundation and its dubious dealings. But he did ask Trump about his tax returns, arguing — not asking — that there might be questionable information in them that the American public deserved to hear.
(2) Birther conspiracy theory. Holt never asked Clinton about her past record of racist statements, including her “super-predator” remarks as First Lady, or her explicit appeal to “white Americans” in her 2008 primary campaign against Obama. Yet he asked Trump about the Birther conspiracy theory and cast it as racist.
(3) Stop-and-frisk. After an exchange between the candidates over the policy of “stop-and-frisk,” Holt interjected to bolster Clinton’s point by stating, erroneously, that stop-and-frisk had ended in New York because it had been declared unconstitutional by a court. Trump countered, correctly, that the new mayor had canceled the policy before the litigation was over.
(4) “A presidential look.” Towards the end of the debate, Holt asked Trump about what he meant by saying Hillary Clinton did not have “a presidential look.” He did so after noting that Clinton had become “the first woman” to be nominated for president by a major political party, thus setting Trump up as a sexist. As Trump answered, Holt interrupted him, then gave Clinton a chance to respond with her talking points about Trump’s past comments on women.
(5) Iraq War. The question of whether Trump supported the Iraq War or not has been widely debated. What is beyond doubt is that Hillary Clinton voted for it. Holt only represented one side of the debate about Trump, and never asked Clinton about her own vote.
In addition, the audience repeatedly interjected— almost always in Clinton’s favor — and Holt did not stop them, though it was against the rules. He only stopped the audience when there were cheers for Trump calling for Clinton’s emails.
Bow again, Jester Holt. You did your job, "Queen Clinton" is proud to have such a jester in her court of liberals.
You watched a different debate Taze, it would help if you talked about the real one.
You are living in a fantasy world aren't you. Try reading the actual news sometime for yourself instead of left wing blogs.
If you consider POTUS, Politico, The Hill, CNN left-wing blogs, then I am guilty. The fact is, I don't read blogs at all, save for Hubpages.
Do you find Drudge, Limbaugh, Hannity, Beck, Fox, Newsmax, National Review credible sources, think again.
You got it, guilty as charged. I don't mind that you read and watch known and proven left leaning media but when that is all you read or watch you are definitely brainwashed. Without looking at the "other" factual sides of things like this https://thehornnews.com/exposed-proof-debate-bias/ you will never be able to think for yourself, you are brainwashed and it is obvious in everything you say. All sources can be credible, but when you only buy into one you are removing the ability to even discern what is credible and what is not. I tune in to all the sources you mentioned (both sides) and that is how I know what facts are facts and what is spin, you have no idea and frankly you don't care to know the facts, that is obvious.
Name one of your sources that refutes what is in the link I just gave you, you can't because it is true, and if you think you have one give it to me and I'll teach you how to discern truth from fiction.
My Esoteric ~ I'm sure it was an innocent MISTAKE, but U forgot "BREITBART" which is essentially Operated by Derivatives of the "KLU KLUX Klan" and other SUBVERSIVE Elements of the DARK Society & the BEST Part??? THEY OWN, Operate, & RUN the Trump Pseudo-Campaign ~
Yup, it's TRUE ~
You wouldn't know the truth if your life depended on it, All you do is label and name call never providing any proof or links or sources so no one can evaluate whether what you say is true or false. False is always the default for people like you.
lol ~ OK Bro, try not tot TAZE me ~ ~
If U Visit any number of my FORUMS you'll DISCOVER they are PACKED with "FACTs & Links" which ILLUSTRATE that your RACIST Hero "Delusional Donald" is a SWINDLER, a Pathological LIAR, Mentally DERANGED, a Communist Sympathizer, a FRAUDSTER who has Preyed upon OUR Elderly Folks, a RACIST Woman HATING Ignorant UNFIT Imecile ~ ~
AND that's an INCOMPLETE LIST ~
BTW ~ "BREITBART" does indeed RUN the Trump PSEUDO-Campaign
Personally, I thought Clinton got absolutely slammed on job creation. Raising taxes to encourage offshore "housing" of capital while importing millions upon millions of solar cells (we don't have the manufacturing capacity for 1% or what she wants and no one will invest in manufacturing plants when taxes are so high and imports so cheap) isn't going to produce many jobs.
Trumps plan, cut taxes in the hope capital will return coupled with raising the cost of imports (probably starting a dozen trade wars) might. I doubt it, but it might and it certainly stands a better chance than a plan doomed to failure before it even starts.
Who won? That will depend solely on which candidate the speaker wants in office. I didn't see a clear winner at all.
BTW, the only tax cut that was followed by a sustained recovery was President Kennedy's. The two tax increases on the wealthy that was followed by sustained growth are the Bush-Clinton tax increase and PBO's tax increase.
Also, current plant capacity is 76%.(range is 67% - 89%)
Taxes can and are waved, but even so, effective corporate tax rate is 15% even though the top rate is 30+%. Effective tax rate in other countries is just shy of 15%.
Imports are so cheap is the problem ... that is what did in Solyndra.
And that means that we should not cut taxes under vastly different circumstances? I don't think so. Never have the rich paid so much, or such a large percentage of the nations needs. Never have we had so much capital setting offshore because we want too much of it. Never have we seen such a loss of jobs from imports. These things are different than what they were, and increasing taxes in order to discourage capital investment isn't going to help.
Yes, plant capacity is 75%, meaning that we are operating at just 75% of what we could be. But total plant capacity is half what it was 20 or 30 years ago: we've torn them down to make room for warehouses for imported goods. We are no longer a powerhouse of manufacturing, but a nation of paper shufflers.
And Never, since WW II anyway, have the rich been paid (not earned) so much more, in percentage terms, than anybody else in America.
Why do half of American wage earners have no disposable income left after taxes and normal household bills? That figure used to be about 25% in the 1960s.
I agree with you and am tired of the same old played philosophies about the economic theories these two want to offer. What they propose is nothing new and Congress who is bought by those who it would hurt the most with any change in the flow will never approve of anything different.
When will we learn there really is no two party system in this country. Let's just call it for what it is. One corporate party.
Rhamson, I am curious.. I have seen you post some version of these two paragraphs many, many times.
What do you propose we do to remedy this situation?
You are basically correct, there is no two party system, because politicians from both the left and right, Dem and Rep, pay homage to the same lobbyists, and funders.
You are wrong about Trump however, he is hated by the GOP and Dem Party equally because he has been exposing the corruption in the electoral process, the corruption in Washington, the failures of our trade agreements that weaken America, cost Americans jobs and better wages, etc.
Trump threatens to audit the Federal Reserve, tax and tariff foreign imports which very simply means that American made products could compete, it would mean that Carrier, Nabisco, Phizer, Ford, etc. would keep the jobs they are exporting to foreign lands here in America, because there would be no financial gain to move out and hire lower waged workers, only to lose those financial gains through taxes.
The logic of it is as simple as 1+1 = 2. That is why the Dem Party can't sell the validity and benefits of TPP to anyone, so they hide it, like they hid the truth of Obamacare, because it meant higher costs and higher deductible for hard working Americans trying to scrape out an existence.
Don't be fooled... the Establishment (both Parties) HATE Trump, they HATE what he stands for, common Americans that are fed up with their lies, their corrupt politics, and their arrogance.
People are so fed up with Washington and the crap they keep forcing down our throats, that they are choosing a loud mouthed Billionaire over the Establishment's chosen front-woman.
Even the 'historic' achievement of a first woman ever as President isn't enough to sway the majority of Americans over into swallowing their BS anymore... and that is what the Establishment hated most about Trump's successes (in spite of himself and all their efforts)... they know it is the people trying to fight back against them.
Well said, one correction though, Not "People are so fed up with Washington and the crap they keep forcing down our throats, that they are choosing a loud mouthed Billionaire over the Establishment's chosen front-woman." "Informed people" who care that America is on the wrong path, the vast majority of citizens btw, according to the polls over 70%. The remainder percentage is the left who want to destroy America so of course they think we are on the right path.
There were apparently some games being played - not surprising with Clinton on the stage.
Clinton aides on Tuesday acknowledged they'd laid a trap for Trump.
"He seemed unable to handle that big stage," said Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta. "By the end, with kind of snorting and the water gulping and leaning on the lectern that he just seemed really out of gas."
So they arrange for a short lectern and a mike that Trump has to bend over to be heard, then make a big deal out of "leaning" on the lectern. Considering what was done to Bernie, I guess Trump should consider himself lucky. American politics is a wonderful thing, isn't it?
I didn't catch this myself, but Jon Rappoport did. The whole debate started out with Holt lying.
WINNER OF LAST NIGHT’S DEBATE WAS LESTER HOLT
"Holt framed the debate by stating that the US economy, particularly employment, has recovered well since the 2007-8 meltdown. Of course, he lied. When you factor in how many people now have low-paying jobs who formerly had good jobs; and when you also consider that people who give up trying to find jobs are eventually no longer listed as unemployed, you get the true picture: the US economy hasn’t recovered. Not by a long shot.
Understandably, Trump was focused, at the moment when Holt lied, on Hillary and the audience in the hall. He was blindsided. From the get-go, he should have pinned Holt and denied Holt’s “facts.” He should have exposed Holt as an errant “fact-checker” and put him back on his heels. That could have changed the whole tone of the evening. Holt’s stone-faced “objective” calm would have been broken. He would have been under the gun." ...
* http://www.infowars.com/winner-of-last- … ster-holt/
But he did put the lie to it: he said that this was the slowest recovery since the depression and he was right. The stock market is still down and, as you say, good jobs are not out there. Unemployment is OK (though OK is all) but those jobs aren't paying anything.
And they won't pay anything until we get our manufacturing base back and running. It isn't the lawn mowing services or the do-it-all handyman that is paying - it's the manufacturing jobs we've sent overseas.
Yes, you are right about recovery time (although the recovery from the 81 recession is tied or runs a close second. The problem with your assertion, Wilderness, is that there has been no recession as bad as the 2008 Great Recession since the Great Depression. Recovery from most of the similar sized events PRIOR to 1929 were as long or longer.
If the second or third lowest unemployment in history is JUST OK, then I must wonder about your scale. BTW, your job quality comment stopped applying a couple of years ago.
Depends on how you count unemployment, doesn't it? We both know (heck, we ALL know) that the figure is artificially low because so many have given up looking for work.
If the job quality stopped applying, that's great! It means the man in the street is now on par with the rich in raising their real income. Yes?
I count it the way it has been counted since the 1930s. That creates a solid baseline for comparison. Actually, the giving up work, as measured by the participation rate started falling with Bush (it peaked in 2000) and began rising again in Oct 2015.
I don't understand your last statement.
Correct, and the Obama Administration had the Bureau of Labor Statistics change how those numbers were counted, more than once in the last eight years.
The more important numbers to consider are:
Working Age Americans (capable of working) who are unemployed - The number of Americans not in the labor force totaled 94708000 in May, 664000 more than in April ... By Susan Jones | June 3, 2016.
Throw in a few million immigrants not being counted into that statistic and we have a whopping 100 million capable people out of work... roughly more than a third of our workforce has no legal means of productivity.
There is also a huge negative impact that the consistent exporting of jobs combined with the ever popular (for companies) H1-B visa program is having. October 1, 2016 ... The Harsh Reality of Being an Unemployed College Graduate. More than two million college graduates are now unemployed and millions more are underemployed.
The Policies put forward by Washington lawmakers for the past quarter century have done little to help workers, improve wages, or make good jobs available. They are great for businesses wanting to export to countries that provide cheap labor and taxes, they are great for foreign nations hoping for our demise, but they are terrible for American workers and America's future.
Oh give me a break, Wilderness, you are too smart to buy into that crap (although the short lectern is a new one)
It never would have occurred to me...until the quote from the DNC. Lecterns are what they are, and so are microphone stands.
But I did hear some comments about the size of the lectern - that Clinton didn't want hers to be shorter than his - before the election. Wrote it off as nonsense, until I watched as Trump had to bend way over to use that mic. Still wrote it off as nonsense, recognizing that unless Clinton stood on a box she was going to be shorter and required a shorter lectern. No big thing.
Until the comment, which I do think was made. It is just the sort of thing I've come to expect from politics today - the appearance is far more important than the substance is and games WILL be played.
The ONLY "REAL" Poll indicates Hillary WON in a "KNOCKOUT"
Hillary 62% Donald 27%
The ONLY Relative Surprise was how "INCOHERENT & Mentally Exhausted" "Delusional Donald" became after ONLY 20 Minutes or so ~ He's always DERANGED, Filled with Uncontrollable "ANGER & Hate" & of course Mentally Un-Hinged, not to mention his Shabby Appearance, but in the DEBATE he seemed to reach a NEW Level of "PSYCHOLOGICAL Ineptitude & Confusion" ~ ESPECIALLY when he attempted to answer a QUESTION related to Nuclear WEAPONs ~
It will NEVER Happen, but could U IMAGINE this 70 Year OLD Demented Man in the same room as OUR "NUKE Button" ?? With ONLY a few Minutes or even HOURs to RESPOND to a "SITUATION" ??~
Hillary was Prepared, Knowledgeable, POSITIVE, Intelligent & Coherent as she Explained how her POLICIEs will indeed "ENHANCE the QUALITY of LIFE" for the Majority of AMERICANs ~ HIGHER Wages for ALL Workers & ZERO Tax Breaks for WALL Street & Wealthy Individuals, whereas Trump would "LOWER Wages" & SLASH Corporate TAXEs from 35% DOWN to 15% and then we simply PRAY they SHARE their WEALTH with the rest of AMERICA ~ ~ We all know how that plan works out right??
We witnessed "Substance" & a STEADY Demeanor from Hillary & The USUAL AGITATED, WEIRD Facial Expressions, Babbling "Carnival of LIEs" & ANTI-American Ramblings from Awkward "Delusional Donald" ~
I'll give him 50/50 ODDs that he actually SHOWs Up for the NEXT Debate and RISK another "HUMILIATING & Embarrasing" DISGRACEFUL RACIST & Misogynistic Performance ~
By my observation of outcomes of previous elections and debate performances I'd say Trump gained the upper hand due to attitude toward the other candidate. Hillary was definitely more prepared but I have found that one particular thing appears to put voters off toward that candidate. I won't mention what it is because I hope she doesn't change her delivery style and it sways people away from her.
lol ~ Well, and Democrats Sincerely HOPE "Donald CONTINUEs to be the same OLD Tired DELUSIONAL DONALD" because the MAJORITY of AMERICANs REJECT his ANTI-American PRO-Communist beliefs, his DISDAIN for Working AMERICANs which have SUED him by the THOUSANDs in COURTs of Jurisdiction for Non-payment of WAGEs or for WORK & Services RENDERED, and of course his Discriminatory & Demeaning Actions toward WOMEN etc etc etc ~
He's absolutely the DEMOCRAT'S Dream Candidate ~
PREVIOUS Debate FOOTAGE ~ JACKass Donald BABBLEs about his Typical OLD Worn-OUT LIEs & ANTI-American beliefs, then prepares AMERICAN Workers for a "MASSIVE Pay-CUT", because in his OPINION, a Guy who was BORN Wealthy & NEVER WORKED a "REAL Job" in his LIFE, "WAGEs are TOO High" for ALL American Workers ~
Yup, Believe it or NOT he ACTUALLY Said it in the below CLIP & Believes it, and although he'll LIE through his FALSE Teeth and say he DIDN't, HERE's the Documented VIDEO from his Previous Disasterous DEBATE Performance ~
How DUMB, Gullible or Utterly UNINFORMED does a Working American need to be to actually Cast a VOTE for this "Mentally Deranged MESS" who had plans to "CUT their PAY" while implementing GEORGE W Bush Style Corporate WEALFARE by SLASHING Corporate TAXEs from 35% to 15% ~ WHO picks Up that "GARGATUAN TAB"?? ~ Yup U guessed right, "WE the PEOPLE" ~
I think the overall impression is going to be that the " menfolk " talked politics and hillary injected silly looks and remarks.
lol ~ WHO Looks "SILLY, Bizarre & CREEPY" when trying to DEBATE ?? It's certainly NOT Hillary ~
Along with "ZERO Preparation & Learning", NOBODY bothers to "FIX" Donald's FACE or hair for Globally Televised DEBATEs ~ NOT Good if your NOT interested in unecessary DISTRACTIONs ~ ~ But then AGAIN, if he wasn't so WEIRD & Creepy Lookin' the Audience might actually LISTEN to what he says and that's an even More FRIGHTENING Scenario ~
HERE ya go, NOT too PLEASING to LOOK at as he Demeans WOMEN, Administers "HATE & Racism", INSULTs OUR Military Veterans, and PLOTs to "CUT Worker's Wages" ~
I'm sure he'll just DENY it's him in the FOOTAGE ~
Left-wing blogs, you know...
FOX NEWS HALFTIME REPORT
Hillary wins round one but Trump is far from done
By Chris Stirewalt Published September 27, 2016 FoxNews.com
HEMPSTEAD, N.Y. – Hillary Clinton can be happy today that she got the better of Donald Trump in the first of three presidential debates. But she ought to be a little concerned too.
Clinton successfully exploited Trump’s ego to keep the Republican nominee off balance and on defense throughout the evening.
Most notably, rather than shredding Clinton over her mishandling of state secrets on a personal email server, Trump passed up the chance in favor of defending his business record and decision to withhold his tax returns.
Post-debate Trump fights media narrative as he tries digging out of a hole
By Howard Kurtz Published September 28, 2016 FoxNews.com
As Donald Trump tries to bounce back from a disappointing night, he has to battle an emerging media narrative that what happened at Hofstra was a turning point.
But Trump and his campaign missed a huge opportunity against Hillary Clinton, who would have outpointed him even if she hadn’t benefited from one-sided questioning by Lester Holt.
"Never have the rich paid so much, or such a large percentage of the nations needs." Because they are the only ones whose income has been growing. Yes, they pay a large percentage, but is it a fair percentage of their income? Not by a long shot.
"Because they are the only ones whose income has been growing." lol, Hardly, it's because the government egregiously wastes the money they take in from taxes and has moved the country closer and closer to a welfare state where hardly anyone but the rich pay taxes.
Actually Taze, fraud, waste, and abuse is a given, in and out of gov't; it cannot be zeroed out. Excessive FWA can be reduced but it amounts to around .001% of GDP.
Now, if you are talking about programs Congress spends money on, that is an issue between you and your congressman.
As to a so-called welfare state, you have no idea what a real on is. Of all the various welfare democracies out there, America is the most stingiest by far. So American citizenry as a whole suffer more than other countries because of viewpoints like yours.
Nobody said anything about fraud waste and abuse, although the government does virtually nothing to stop it. The money I'm talking about is wasted by being legitimately spent on things, policies, wars, programs, (eg. solyndra) foreign aid, you name it that isn't needed = wasted. Boy all you know how to do is twist what is said or put words in people's mouths to make your ludicrous points, YOU are pathetic.
Excessive FWA can be reduced but it amounts to around .001% of GDP."
"However, others, including U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder, suggest that there is an estimated $60 to $90 billion in fraud in Medicare and a similar amount for Medicaid."
That makes just medicaid and medicare fraud (at 60B each) to be .7% of our 18 T GDP, or 700 X .001%. Worse, and far more importantly, the fraud in just those two programs is 3% of the national budget.
Yes, those are outdated numbers. They are outdated because changes brought on by ACA has cut substantially into at least Medicare fraud; I don't k now about Medicaid.
BTW, I found $60B for Medicare alone and $60B for Medicare and Medicaid combined.
Other stats I found is that roughly 10% of Medicare/Medicaid budgets go to fraud while the same is true for private insurers (although I suspect the real number for private insurers is less because they can afford better software to catch fraud.
Also, one of the biggest money wasters in Medicare/Medicaid is the GOP's refusal to let those programs get drugs on a competitive basis ... that from a Party that supposedly believes in the free-market ... NOT.
Don't: Do you have a news source or do you just make stuff up after watching Comedy Central? There are statistics on this information. It's been in all the newspapers and news shows. You can have an opinion, but you can't change facts.
Do you actual pay attention to what you read or just put words in people's mouths routinely. I never said the rich aren't the only one's whose income is growing now did I. Try reading it slowly maybe you can comprehend that I said the fact their income is growing isn't why they pay such a large percentage of the nations needs but their taxes are so high because of too much never ending wasteful spending. stop the government spending and taxes won't need to go up, on anybody. I never challenged your statement the the rich are making more money...really you need to listen when you read before throwing around comedy central insults, which by the way your antics would command a lot of laughs there.
Will you also charge "the rich" $10 for a dozen eggs? $20 for a loaf of bread?
Why is it "fair" for them to pay a thousand times what you do for the exact same product?
Liberals fail to see the whole idea of Jobs and Income generated BY THE Company Owners . If I'm a guy with money ,Am I not Opening a factory , a restaurant, a baking institution , a furniture store chain , am I not creating multiple jobs , multiple incomes , multiple day care centers , a reason for mortgages , a reason for plumbers electricians , a mushrooming economy ............Do liberals ONLY look at the rich like they are money hoarders - and a quick place to get more free benefits on the backs of others ?
"Do liberals ONLY look at the rich like they are money hoarders - and a quick place to get more free benefits on the backs of others ?"
Discounting the horns and tail, yes.
Hmm, what about the wealthy liberals? Something tells me they are not of that opinion, being 'rich' themselves.
Rich people get more in "free benefits" solely due to their wealth, than poor people from their lack of it.
You sound like rich people get "free benefits" as if they're on welfare and do nothing for it, I got news for you ME, they work for it.
Agreed, the rich (most of them anyway) work for their money but laborers (all) work for theirs just as hard, if not harder! They DO NOT work for the freebies, like political access, that they get solely because they have money and ONLY because they have money. And yes, they also get welfare-like benefits such as tax shelters, tax breaks, higher interest rates for their money, and the like. While political and old-boys network access is a soft benefit (it requires no work to achieve, just lots of money) they often turn into hard money, sometimes more in one day that harder-working Americans earn in a lifetime. Another benefit of having money, employed often today, is the ability to write their own rules, often to the detriment of the poorer Americans.
This is just for starters.
There you go again, "solely because they have money and ONLY because they have money" forgetting that they worked hard for that money in almost every case, a right every worker has and many started their fortunes working as laborers of different sorts, that's the American dream. If you had your way you'd totally do away with the American dream so that everyone can be equal, equally miserable.
Let's assume for the moment, that workers were paid fairly for the value of their work in 1960. In that same period, CEOs earned somewhere between 20 and 50 times as much as those who worked for them. Let us further assume that is a fair ratio (which I personally think it is).
Then what changed that allows CEOs to earn, on average, 300 times more than those who work for them today??? The way I look at things, the difference between the 50 and 300 times is all UNEARNED money, basically what they can skim off the top due SOLELY to their power and wealth.
Please try to defend that stupendous, outrageous growth in income from the 1960s to the 2010s.
When did welfare become the government taking less? It has always been the government giving money/products - how did it become taking less?
Only if you assume it is the governments in the first place, that government owns that money instead of the one that earned it, that that could possibly be considered welfare. But that is the socialist/liberal mindset, isn't it? Whatever you have actually belongs to the politician to do with as they see fit.
I am guessing you think I implied something about the "gov't taking less". Unless I am being situationally blind, I don't see where I broached the idea. Please point out where you think I did.
"And yes, they also get welfare-like benefits such as tax shelters, tax breaks".
I see where you got that, thanks. Problem is, welfare isn't measured from those who give it, it is measured from the point of view of who gets it.
Another way of looking at it is YOU are giving welfare to the rich through your taxes which are necessarily higher because of the these gifts to the wealthy.
lol ~ CONservatives don't seem to UNDERSTAND The FACT that GIVING RICH Individuals even MORE of OUR WEALTH will NEVER "TRICKLE DOWN" to "WE the PEOPLE" ~ The MONEY TRICKLEs Up & the ONLY thing U get is a SLAP & ONE Way Ticket into POVERTY ~
The LAST Republican to try that SCAM was George W BUSH who GAVE TRILLIONs to WALL Street & CORPORATIONs & what was the END RESULT ?? The WORST Economic Disaster in HISTORY ~ JOBs LOST by the TENs of THOUSANDs & guess who CHANGED that Trajectory? Yup, President OBAMA et al and NOW we are ALL the WAY DOWN to 5% Unemployement ACCORDING to Official SOURCES such as the Labor DEPT. although Phoney Networks like FOX Loser "FAKE-NEWz" would probably disagree ~
WE are ABSOLUTELY on a POSITIVE Trajectory ~
ROFLMAO "GIVING RICH Individuals even MORE of OUR WEALTH" You don't seem to understand it is their money, the rich's earned money, not the government's to give them,or your wealth to give them. The government takes their wealth from them. Where do you get the crazy idea it is your wealth (you said our wealth?) You think lowering their taxes is the government giving them money? lol
You are so lame.
Well, ACTUALLY you're Inaccurate about everything "BUT Pleez try not to TAZE me Bro" ~
* When U live in the UNITED Sates of AMERICA U are OBLIGATED by LAW to PAY Taxes for Maintaining Our Country PERIOD ~ It's a REQUIREMENT of Everyone & Every Company NOT Excluding "TAX HIDER Trump" ~ "NO Taxes NO Country", which is actually what some of "Delusional Donald's" FANz would like to see ~ ~
The Revenue will ultimately need to come from somewhere & We all Know Donald can NEVER become President of the U.S., but if he were allowed to execute his SCAM by Gifting Wall Street MORE of OUR Wealth by SLASHING their TAXEs from 35% to 15%, U know who's gonna' end Up footing that BILL don't U ~ Yup, "WE the PEOPLE" ~
* Most WEALTHY Individuals DO NOT EARN their Fortunes ~ The Walton
FAMILY Founders of Wal-mart are worth an ESTIMATED $150 BILLION while the Wal-mart EMPLOYEE is "UNDER-Valued & Under-PAYED" at an AVERAGE of $8.81 per hr ~ That's SWINDLER Trump's America, NOT Hillary nor Bernies ~
Actually, it is YOUR taxes, Taze, assuming you pay any, that subsidize the gifts the wealthy get from the gov't. Your taxes are higher because of it.
Of course they do ! Every rich guy in America has fourteen homes , a Gazillion in the banks , is a miser , never donates ore creates a job . They are just sitting around on bales of dollars waiting for the interest rate to rise ........................Right ?
Not the couple that I know , they are too busy building job markets , expanding the economy of dozens ,no hundreds of people , spending hiring , eating out , traveling , lodging ...............But the liberal idea of a rich guy is someone sitting on bales of hundreds waiting for the interest % to rise up again !
Wealth redistribution IS A HAPPENING thing in America , people WITH money have made that happen for centuries , !
Not true, Ahorseback. The period between WW II and 1981 was an historical anomaly where wealth and income were reasonably distributed. Prior to that, without exception, the rich, the aristocrats, the major landowners, the Robber Barons and those that worked high in the organizations had the great lion's share of the wealth and income. We are talking 90% if the wealth and 1/2 the population shared only 20% of the income.
Think of it. in 1900 if there were a 100 people in America who, between them, earned $100 then 1) 10 people would get $4.50 each, 2) 40 people would get 87.5 cents each, and 3) 50 people would get paid 40 cents each, or just 9% of the top rung! That is what income distribution looked like, or worse, throughout much of history
In 1960, when things were the most properly distributed in history (meaning you had a vibrant middle class) those numbers shift dramatically where 1) the top 10% got $2.50 each, 2) the next 40% got $1.125 each, and 3) the bottom 50% got 60 cents or 24% of the top pay.
In 2010 (it is worse today), the bottom 50% earn only 13% as much as the top 10% and it is still deteriorating.
So yes, you are right, redistribution IS HAPPENING, from the worker TO the rich. In another 50 years, if things keep going the way they are, we will be back to the 1790s where gross income inequality helped precipitate the French Revolution.
In all fairness, Trump won.
He set a goal...
Well, he did it! She's been incredibly happy since the debate. LOL
I think it was a close debate. Maybe even too close to call. But I think Trump, cordially, yet assertively defeated holt in the first debate.
"No, no sniffles, no. You know, the mic was very bad, but maybe it was good enough to hear breathing." - W. Trump
“Imagine a woman who showed up [to a presidential debate] unprepared, sniffling like a coke addict and interrupting her opponent 70 times. Let’s further imagine that she had 5 kids by 3 men, was a repeated adulterer, had multiple bankruptcies, paid zero federal taxes and rooted for the housing crisis in which many thousands of families lost their homes. Wait… there’s more: she has never held any elected office in her life.” -Michelle Vitali
Yes imagine that.
Now imagine that the same voters voting for Hillary only because she is a woman would also be voting for your imagined woman.
Who is voting for her only because she is a woman?
Who is voting for her because she is a woman? You aren't very informed are you? Maybe you'd try googling that question if you really wanted to know the answer instead of feigning ignorance. Watch this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZFb2X6lXA4g or read this, I quote "If you haven’t figured out what you’re going to do about it, do this, vote for the first woman president." from this article http://www.huffingtonpost.com/giana-pac … 96106.html
Yep, the left welcomes people who can't figure out if Hillary is worth voting for to just vote for her because she is a woman. They're gaslighting women everywhere to vote for her JUST because she is a woman.
I can't blame the democrats for taking that tack because even though it is an insane notion, it is the sanest reason to vote for her.
A YouTube video and an opinion piece are not evidence of anything. However, it is likely there are a few people who will vote for Hillary because they like the idea of a woman president, just as there are a few people who will not vote for her solely because she is a woman.
Actually, ONE of the factors I am using is the fact that Hillary IS a woman. EVERYTHING else being equal, I would vote for her rather than a male opponent. I have two reasons for that.
1) Less important but it is time America break the glass ceiling like most other advanced countries have
2) More importantly, I firmly believe, after having studied political history for many years, that a qualified female in charge of a country leads to a less violent, more stable, outcome.
Yet he gets full endorsement by the Christian Right, wow, what a bunch of hypocrites!!! What spirit is moving them to support this spawn of Satan, while they all compare Obama to the anti-Christ?
Wow, your in depth analysis is persuasive. Kellyanne should hire you. You would fit right in!
Much like the report that the 2 years of tax returns reported in Trumps SEC filing in 1981 showed he paid no taxes. No mention of the other 3 years in the same report where he paid $170,043 just like no mention that that was Clinton's job at the time and she did it correctly and well, as expected and demanded in our justice system.
Um, I don't give a rat's rectum about Trump's taxes.
And I don't give one about Clinton's performance as PD. I'm just getting really fed up with getting half the story all the time because the speaker isn't interested in giving enough information to make an informed decision, just in influencing a belief whether true or not.
All of us, as citizens, deal with having to wade through unimportant crap to get to what we considerto be meaningful and important criteria for a president. Self-control is high on my list. In past presidential races it wasn't an issue. It was a given and rarely even discussed. Remember when Howard Dean lost his lead in the primaries because of the scream?
Imagine. Now some people are ok with a guy who ridiculed a disabled reporter and bragged about the size of his d!@k. Pathetic.
I read an article that seems to imply that Bill Clinton's past infidelities are to be fair game for Trump's attacks on Clinton. I can't believe that a grown man would go down this road with this irrelevant line of attack. Yes, he is a misogynist and there is plenty of evidence of that in his behavior and comments. But, what does Mr. Clinton and Hillary's marriage to him have to do with her fitness for the job of President? With all his infidelities and wife swapping over the years, who is Trump to talk? This is so below the belt, even for Trump.
Stay tuned for the next installment of "As the Stomach Turns" .
After watching the last debate, I have come to tealize that Clinton will be masterfully prepared for whatever nonsense Little Donnie throws at her. She has his number. He has no self-control and is unable to pretend to be sane for a full 90 minutes.
So , You Too -are about to vote to elect for president of the United States someone who's husband was impeached and disbarred ! AND who her herself may be indicted , impeached and disbarred !
Yeeeaaa ! Vote for another felon , One more Impeachable leader !......That makes you a winner too.
Excellent points, but Not me. That video's not an endorsement of Hillary. I think you meant to reply to PrettyPanther?
That would be "impeached" and found innocent. As to your flights of fancy about HRC, it would be more correct to say Trump, if elected, will be the first President to be impeached and found guilty by his own Party in history.
And then there is the BILLION DOLLAR loss he claimed in 1995 that effectively wiped out his taxes for the next decade.
How does a good business man LOSE $1,000,000,000?
More pithy commentary from Trump's elite. You're on a roll! Keep going. LOL
Nope? How about a little voter fraud. This is how Democrats win elections.
http://endingthefed.com/breaking-fraudu … g.facebook
Voter fraud is a fraid in its own right. Like judge Judy says, don't piss on my leg and tell it's raining. And next time supply a legit site as a validated source.
What do ya know this time Dean got it right.
Still, that's more times I've been than you
Well now getting it right once will never make up for the fact you just demonstrated by that statement you never learned how to count.
<personal attack snipped>....I got that one right.
I pay you a compliment pointing out you got something right and you reply with a wise crack and then name calling?
A back handed compliment? I don't think so.
Yeah, and name calling is a sign of real maturity? You need to learn how to be creative. People like you with low self esteem are unhappy, miserable and they are always loaded with negative feelings. To improve your self-esteem you have to focus on your own unique abilities and characteristics and also on things that you like. It is not an easy thing to do but low self esteem can be improved and raised to a higher level.
You can do it Dean...try to
As I mentioned somewhere someone with this much paranoia and vitriol is usually a self-loathing person. I get the feeling you saw it before it was deleted and I can tell you think you can turn the table on me with the same approach.....no. it doesn't work that way. Still, IM curious. What is it you dont like about yourself? You can't come up with anything that witty so you lash out at those that can? Do you look in the mirror and see someone that's miserable and a failure, both personally and economically. Thus, you strike out against others you perceive as successful?I remember confronting someone like you. He hated welfare and drug users. And touted his conservative creds. It turned out he was both on welfare and drugs.Is this the same thing for you? You talk a big game, but can you play the big game? As for me -- a married homeowner with kids, a steady job and fledgling writer status? Things are good.
Wow, this is unbelievably condescending. Especially since your initial "compliment" was also very patronizing.
Had to have a quick chuckle at you preaching about negativity too, since you are consistently antagonistic and unkind.
Have a look in the mirror, Bro. I think you're projecting.
Projecting? I'm not the one who uses name calling, I've seen Dean's conversations, anytime his disagreements are put down he name calls, any psychiatrist will tell you that is a clear sign of low self esteem, also demonstrated by the lengths to which he goes to convince me otherwise.
But then I'm not surprised at your reaction, I've read your comments too and I think you should lay off the beer drinking, as you say, one of your favorite pastimes.
No, you're a bit more crafty with your insults though also much more mean-spirited with them. Putting other people down in general can be a sign of low self-esteem but that's most certainly not specific to name calling. Your behaviour is really no better or different.
You're not being terribly specific here, what does my liking beer have to do with calling you out for being condescending and a bit of a hypocrite?
Um...you tend to draw first blood. I just finish it. You're the one who likes to dish it out, but starts to whine when you realize you can't win an argument. Remember, I've read your past posts, too. You don't exactly have a good name around here. In fact, some of the most thoughtful, most articulate people on this site, seemingly spit profanities when they see your posts. They don't hesitate to call you out.
Also, I highly doubt a psychiatrist will analyze me. He or She will probably turn his/her attention to you. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised that someone has already talked to you about your self-esteem (or lack there of) or anger management issues. BTW, when did you learn about self-esteem? It sounds like you saw it in some publication the other day. Either way, you don't have much of grasp on understanding it.,,as well as politics, life, reality... oh heck! everything.
Aime, I'm condescending? Maybe you should go to the start of this thread. and reread a couple times with this in mind.
I gave Dean credit for being right. All I did was say he got one right and I backed up his comment with a link. I implied nothing but because he has low esteem he inferred that I was insulting him? So he had to say he is right more times than me, a clear sign he has to boost his self esteem. If that isn't insecure and condescending I don't know what is! Any normal person would have said thank you for confirming i was right and thanks for the snopes link.
So I replied he doesn't know how to count (not condescending but a fact because I have always been right more often than him). Because of his low self esteem once again he takes that statement as an assault on his self esteem and resorts to calling me an idiot (a known sign of someone who as low self esteem). Then I compassionately try to help him with his obvious self esteem problem by encouraging him to just be himself. I even told him he is wonderful but instead of taking advice he claims I drew first blood? Another obvious sign he has low self esteem as he is intimidated by innocuous statements and ever since all he has tried to do is defend his self esteem, something that a person without low self esteem would never do, especially to me someone he thinks is an idiot.
No Aime, you have miss read this whole thread and if you don't know what my suggesting you should lay off the beer means, well then I can't help you. Maybe if you lay off the beer then you will know what that means.
Oh you're such a victim! .So what is it? delusion of grandeur? Pathological liar? Mental Health issues? Emotional or behavioral disorders? ADD? bI-polar? Since I work with DIS counselors and psychologists, I may check with them on Monday and see if they can make a diagnosis from these responses. In the meantime, stop repeating terms you just learned the other day. It's annoying. And it really shows your ignorance.
I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and just end this by saying that your sincerity would be a lot more believable if you didn't throw things that could be perceived as insults in with your compliments.
I'll be happy to see you prove my initial feelings about you wrong.
Keep it coming! Little Donnie would be proud of the whining about how everything is rigged. Your leader is teaching you how to make excuses and you're an "A" student.
Although I know it means nothing to you, because it trashes your narrative, but study after study after study has shown the kind of voter fraud you are referring to is simply in the noise and has NEVER affected an election.
The kind of voter fraud that went on until a couple of decades ago, stuffing ballot boxes, dead people voting, etc, effectively died when Johnson got elected.
So, please stick to the facts, if that is possible.
Fact: More dead people have been found voting for Hillary. Which is why Democrats are always pushing the narrative that Voter ID laws are racist. Everything is racist to a loosing liberal.
Want to see how democrats think .........................?
Watch this !
Wow that Trump must have been doing coke while he debates Hillary !
Wow that Trump is a fool for Miss Piggy !
Wow that Trump must be hiding why the feds have audited him every year since Obama took Office !
Wow that Trump must own wall street .
I love how you are always telling us how Democrats think. I hope people will go by what progressives (who are not necessarily all Democrats) actually post here rather than ahorseback's warped characterization.
Not warped really , just very real . I mean if I had to get into the mind of a quasi- liberal today ; I'd have to go with shallow , selfish , entitled , even pre-programmed towards lazy and greedy. But hey everyone's entitled to believe what it is that they see in the nature of "others ", I mean right , don't liberals promote self expression and activism , or is that just FOR liberals?
That's it isn't it ? Only liberals are entitled to self expression.
Yes, "Liberal = Bad". Too bad for that argument is that it was liberalism and progressivism that brought us out of the stone-age of conservationism.
* It was conservatives from both Parties which pushed for and won a compromise on slavery in the Constitution which kept slaves enslaved
* It was Southern Baptists and conservatives from both Parties that fought tooth and nail to keep slavery alive
* It was conservatives in both Parties that led us into Civil War
* It was conservatives in both Parties, via the Supreme Court that eviscerated the laws enacted to enforce the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments from 1884 to 1929
* It was conservatives in both Parties which tried to keep women from voting.
* It was conservatives in both Parties that allowed and supported the oppression of blacks and other minorities in the 1940s - 1960s
* It was conservatives in both Parties that opposed, sometimes violently, the Civil Rights and Voting Rights Acts of the 1960s
* It is conservatives in both Parties that have been trying ever since those two Acts to roll them back
* It is the conservatives in the Rehnquist and Roberts' Supreme Court that actually has rolled back civil and voting rights in America.
* There are no more conservatives left in the Democratic Party, they all got beaten or switched to the conservative GOP.
* It is a self-describe conservative and spokesman for conservatism today that is issuing xenophobic, Islamophobic, racist, and misogynistic hatred in an effort to become President of the United States.
What is so sad is there is not ONE hyperbolic statement in list. What is sadder still is that list describes at least 20% of Americans to a "T".
That's who is. He's nothing to add to any conversation
As I was saying.....he has nothing of real importance to add to any conversation. He can't think for himself, so he labels anyone with a valid point as being part of a group (he thinks other will despise) and tries to run them down. I say" try to" because he only makes himself look ignorant.
In many respects, I'm not surprised he's touting Trump the victor, despite the facts. The two are whiny and are thin-skinned (BTW Trump's two-three hour rant on twitter in the wee hour of the morning looks real presidential), and are clueless.
You'll get very little disagreementfrom me, but in the six years I've been on the forums he has had some credible points to make now and then.
Can U IMAGINE THIS ~
"Delusional Donald's" Head has been "ABLAZE" with "HAIR Plugz SMOLDERING" for almost a week NOW ~ A "Twitter STORM RAGE" Induced by who or what ??? ~ Yup, a Former MISS Universe ~ ~
I guess now we know WHY Donald is ALREADY Vladimir Putin's "POODLE" ~
But don't worry none trumpeteers, ACCORDING to his GAGGLE of Dishonest, "REALITY-Denying SURROGATEs" like Kelly-Anne Conway, that RUSSIAN Guy, etc etc, Donald will be just as PREPARED for the NEXT Debate as he was for the LAST one ~ ~ If of course he SHOWs Up ~
BTW ~ LATEST "REAL" Debate Poll Results ~ WHO Won?
Hillary 61% Donald 21%
* He ALSO LOST More Support from WOMEN of ALL Ages & Backgrounds ~
Oh look, more dead people voting Democrat.
http://www.richmond.com/news/virginia/a … 012f9.html
I read the entire article. No fraudulent votes were cast at all so how could they vote Democrat?
If you're going to attempt a smear, at least be good at it. Typical Trump-like ineptitude.
Typical lame Hillary denial. A simple search for Harrisonburgvotes (which was mentioned prominently in the article) showed which party was responsible. Only someone pretending not to know what the end game was would overlook this.
Yes, but no votes were cast, so when he said "Oh look, more dead people voting Democrat," he was wrong.
I'm as appalled by cheating as anyone but this is hardly evidence of a vast Hillary conspiracy.It was a college student and twenty ballots.
Hard to be an apologist for a woman who has a lifetime of failures in public office to account for.
Lol, once again your reply is so....intellectual and on point.
But it's not Jester Lester's idea of fair and balanced! Jesters are simply there to entertain the Queen's court so he was just performing NBCNews' idea of "fair and balanced" for Queen Hillary. NBC, ABC, CNN they're all part of the Queen's court.
And what the hell is that thing? No answers? What a surprise...
It was a lapel mic, Einstein. They attach to a transmitter that is typically worn under clothing. Both candidates wore one.
So the mic in front of her face was just a prop? Get real.
Pretty Panther, I think you'll need to hand this out to certain someone .LMAO
You might want to keep that face palm for yourself. The one you're backing is the only candidate with a kill list, and a bunch of media shills on her side.
You actually believe that Bs? Beside, your candidate wrote an editoral to call for the death penalty for 5 teens accused of rape. They would later be found innocent. New York media at the time loved the chump to stitches. It's not until he proved he was insane did they reavaluate the love for him. So I'll give the face palm for quoting a meme bat s*** schilling and for the so-called kill list that has been debunked many times over.
Um, Google is your friend. The key is being a discriminate researcher and recognizing the difference between a political hack "news" site and a real one.
I've always said bullies were coward, and Trump proved that theory. He got his ass kicked by a girl and he's whining and talking about how tough he's gonna' be.
And much of that money went to help the very people those countries oppress.
How can you simply LIE to yourself?? U NO VERY WELL that the Clinton Foundation DOES NOT GIVE to charities; THEY ARE the charity. All of those Salaries, Benefits, and Travel (they don't spend much on fundraising, they don't need to) is on Charitable work. In other words, They Do It Themselves; they don't NEED to give to other charities.
So, Please Stop Lying..
It doesn't say "giving to charities", it says "charitable giving".
I can be very charitable to myself as well, and you can help too. Just go to the "buy Onusonus a new race car" fund and make a donation today.
Please stop sharpshooting. Since "charitable giving" is not in the ad or in my post, why did you make it up?
I get so sick of the constant stupidity. Certain people will not take the time to learn. All they want is one more reason to diss the candidate they despise. They don't care about the truth.
Actually, I missed the fine print. The ad equates "giving to charity" with "charitable giving" lol. So even with my error, my point is the same.
I'm sure your semantics will all come out in the wash after the FBI is complete with their investigation assuming they don't all mysteriously commit suicide.
http://www.thepoliticalinsider.com/anot … increases/
At least you will admit an error, unlike so many here who post lies and carry on unconcerned when caught. And yes, that detail is irrelevant for the point.
And, supports female genitalia mutilation for sex slaves.
"See Hillary's Libyan Jihadi Atrocities"
I presume you are being sardonic and ironic, color.
SEE HILLARY'S LIBYAN JIHADI ATROCITIES
* http://www.wnd.com/2016/10/see-hillarys … trocities/
Oh look, more Democrats rigging elections.
http://dailycaller.com/2016/10/07/study … thousands/
And another enemy of Clinton is found dead. That makes four in the last 60 days.
http://www.americanjournalreview.com/al … uncement/#
by The General Conservative 2 years ago
Who won the first Presidential debate?
by Susie Lehto 17 months ago
After THUMPING Clinton in Monday night’s debate, Trump headed to the sunshine state for a YUGE RALLY in Melbourne, Florida. (National poll has Trump 46.7% and Clinton 42.6%: http://www.latimes.com/politics/ ) After Trump's plane landed something magical happened.A gigantic bolt of lightning...
by Faith Reaper 2 years ago
If you watched the first debate between Hillary and Trump, who do you think came out ahead and why?I'm just curious, if you watched the debate, who do you think came out ahead after the first debate between Hillary or Trump? I watched it for close to an hour, and couldn't take much more of...
by Steven Escareno 2 years ago
After the latest presidential debate on 10/09/2016, CNN asked a championship winning high school debate team to critique both Hilary Clinton's and Donald Trump's performance. Take in mind, CNN did say these kids aren't old enough to vote yet, but they felt that their experience debating...
by Eric L. Andrews 6 years ago
Who won the presidential debate last night, Barack Obama or Mitt Romney?
by PhoenixV 2 years ago
Who won the Lester Holt-Donald Trump debate?
Copyright © 2018 HubPages Inc. and respective owners. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc. HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.
|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|