I notice one lesbian Trump supporter has called out Robbie Mook, asking how the hell a gay guy can support such a corrupt, two-faced liar as Hillary, who accepts loads of cash from governments that kill gays and treat women as slaves. Shrillary collects nearly all of the cash for her campaign from big Wall Street firms and other billionaires, and I'm sure money from the Middle East potentates finds its laundered way into her cashbox.

The elite, who are the biggest cheerleaders for the New World Order and globalism, are terrified of Trump. If the rest of us don't stop Clinton, we better get used to rule by oligarchy and the end to personal liberty.

Its time to disband the crooked establishment. Trump might not be perfect by any means, but he is a LOT better than Hildebeast, and he has my vote and support.

The media and the establishment hates Trump, simply because he doesnt support their crooked cronyism. I do hope that others see underneath the smiling face of Hillary to the raw cronyism underneath

Trumpet missed a multitude of opportunities...Regan... he is not.

That is the most insane, retarded load of crap yet to dribble from the idiot savant department run by the Beast. How can anyone go on national news and even say that with a straight face?

Robby Mook .... Wesley Mouch they seem one and the same , looters and liars.
I found this interesting when Towards the end of the debate and Chairworm Bitchillary was saying Trump called women specific names and so on.
Trump said he had thought about saying something regarding the Clinton's , but he decided not to and to be nice , and that she had spent $200 million on derogatory and disparaging ads. I wonder if The Donald will drop the gloves next round.

and, with 2 against 1, the "debate" looked strange. -- j
.

More proof that Hillary is part of the movement to establish a new aristocracy composed of and ruled by a cadre of self proclaimed "intellectual elites". The great unwashed living in flyover country don't realize that they need guidance. "They don't understand what's in their own self interest" according to Pelosi.

Trump has some killer opportunities to crush Hillary, but he focuses his shots too low.

On jobs, he should simply say: Companies create jobs. The only way to create jobs is to make companies want to be here. The issue with jobs in the US is not the cost of labor. The issue is the taxes. Why else are companies leaving, doing inversions, etc? This is so simple. Just make companies want to be int he US more than Ireland. Your policy is the opposite, and it is clear it will have the opposite effect.

Same on his tax policy. Simple. Make it simple. Let the people understand. Make Hillary look like the schister she is.

She paints him with the "trickle down" brush. He should just ask the people: "Do you feel like we were better economically in the 1980s, or now? Were there more manufacturing jobs in the 1980s or now? She and her husband have had their way with NAFTA and China, and here we are with no manufacturing in the US. How about we try something different. We partner with companies, rather than vilifying them, and we create jobs and wealth?" I would add, "It is convenient to vilify companies that have misbehaved. Some do. Many do not. Hillary's party's solution is to restrict companies with government powers. However, we have seen government misuse it's powers considerably, police, EPA and email. Once a government authority is established, it never goes away. It's costs and effects are immortal. We have a very restrictive Sarneyns-Oxley, and that's not enough. Companies are easy to control, like dogs. The solution is not to chain then in the front yard. It is to give them an objective we all want. So simple.

I am so wiped out over the skewed politics that I'm on autopilot. Yes, I'll opine, I'll vote, but the true energy, the old driving force is gone. After I experienced one outrage after another and nothing was done about it, I had no hope that the good would triumph. If it does I'll applaud, if it doesn't, I'll shrug (my shoulders).There was a time when I'd march and protest, write to the editor, organize groups. I'm done with it. Any volunteers?

Both the title and lead caption of this thread are so incoherently written that they appear to have been run through some kind of 'net translator from the original Urdu or Senegalese or maybe from some rare dialect from Papua New Guinea. At any rate, such software translations tend to be a little sketchy.

But you lost me at "libtart"[sic] - which I believe is commonly spelled "libtard." Whichever. I think people who want to be taken seriously in online debate at any level need to dispense, once and for all, with the goofball practice of assigning derogatory names for opponents.

Yes, I will cop to having done this on occasion myself in days gone by, but after years of seeing it all over the place and noting how intensely silly some of these things have gotten ("Libtard?" Really?) two simple truisms began to stand out in ever-clearer relief:

- Calling your opponent a derogatory nickname tells readers absolutely nothing except maybe "I don't like this person / idea / party / group."

- Calling your opponent a derogatory nickname also tells readers that you are somewhat juvenile, at least in your style. Not an enhancement of your position, that.

A separate issue is that of the confiscation of the term "liberal" in the first place. It should denote "advocate of liberty," not "advocate of the precise, polar opposite of liberty on every issue." So why are we granting to... people we ought to be calling "collectivists" or "statists" or less precisely, "leftists," a compliment they absolutely do not deserve? Even "Leftard" would be an improvement - on intellectual precision if not on style.

As for a Clinton apparatchik wishing out loud that the table might be further slanted away from Democrat B to the direction of his particular favorite, Democrat A, should come as no surprise.

I will be voting for neither in any case. The only true choice on November 8 is:
Bring a pen.
.