"r****d" is an offensive derogatory term intended towards people that are mentally handicapped. You may intend to insult the intelligence of iether candidate (and at least in he case of Clinton, such an insult would be questionable as she is highly educated and intelligent, and I suspect Trump supporters would consider Trump highly educated and intelligent). Instead you should focus criticism of either or both candidates on some other characteristic. But the original point remains, using a derogatory term that is offensive to people that know mentally challenged is inappropriate. And someone insulting the intelligence of someone should be intelligent enough to know this. I would be interested to know what Democrat you have ever supported or voted for. Based solely on what you post here I suspect you have only voted for Republicans. Which make both your sudden support for the Independent candidate, and your criticism about "pro-elite, pro-money" seem less than ingenuous.
not a big hillary fan but she was straight toying with him. gotta sting worse for trump knowing he got whooped by a woman. GAME. BLOUSES.
Was Regis Philbin hosting? Because I've never seen a candidate use the "Phone a Friend" option before.
Hillary just stood there and baited Trumpy and old geezer fell for it everytime hook line and sinker. Hillary 1 -0 Trump
I almost...almost...feel bad for Mike Pence. You can see on his face that he doesn't believe the s*** he's forced to spew. But he agreed to do this. (He's on CBS right now) He also doesn't have any clue how to use the word "literally".
I think Clinton won. The whole naming-dropping Xanax smile she had going on is going to go over well with suburban women - the demographic she needed to win. Incidentally, that was also a great audition for Marvel Comic's next Joker role.
For those saying Trump won on the economy, what changes, plans, policies or initiatives did he outline to "bring back" jobs, rebuild infrastructure, or reverse trade deficits? How would he influence the FED, what would he have them do with monetary policy and how would he get them to do it? What would he do about the oversupply of world labor with expanding automation? What is his view on income inequality and how would he approach it? Did he say? (I didn't watch)
I watched the debate and thought Clinton demolished him BUT #TrumpWon is a worldwide trend on Twitter right now. Given the fact that it is 2016, the winner in the eye of the public is Trump.
Of course he didn't. He complained, b****ed and moan, often in circles, and never gave specifics. When your entire platform is synonymous with "FW:FW:FW:FW:FW:" emails from your uncle, your policy proposals don't go too deep.
Trump may have made a major mistake which cost him the election by essentially saying he doesn't pay federal tax. Going forward, she needs to hammer on this:
Most snapshot online polling seems to show Trump winning the debate: http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-09-27/hillary-vs-donald-so-who-won who knows though. Are you claiming he is illegally skirting taxes? Doubt it. Terrible tax system that HIllary's husband helped build. lots of loopholes, Trump is probably just using them.
The jobs issue is not about "bring back jobs" in a literal sense. The sentiment is centered on preventing further job loss by re-writing, amending, or enforcing existing rules to give business an incentive to both not offshore jobs from the US and to create jobs here in the US. I thought Trump made that point rather clearly last night - did you not watch the debate?
Yes, I am accusing him of that. How am I supposed to know when he refuses to release them, running afoul of 40 years of tradition?
Lots of people get caught for Tax evasion, they don't have to release their taxes to the public......
same old slippery Trump, many accusations w no specific solutions. other accusing the Fed of being political, w no supporting evidence, he didn't say how he'd interact w the Fed. he didn't. say. Hillary was providing eg, such as infrastructure projects, like a solar energy grid, etc, that would add many jobs to the economy, as well as providing free community college education to build a more skilled workforce. during the latter half of the debate, when Trump was bordering on being incoherent, Hillary accused him of perpetuating income inequality, he just took it..
Genuine question because I'm curious: how is this feasible in a global economy? The soundbite "bringing back jobs" sounds great and it's something every politician has said over the last few years, especially when courting Rust Belt voters. But how is this possible? We live in an era of automation and global production, the latter of which features untold numbers of people in China, India, etc. willing to work for a wage and standard of living that Americans would never accept. I'm sure if you told Ford they could pay employees $5 per day in Michigan, they'd gladly come back. But Americans won't accept that and we shouldn't have to. I totally understand the frustration from people who saw their parents provide a middle class life on industrial salaries without the need for expensive college educations. That path is no longer an option for many of today's voters and I wish there were real, substantive proposals to help these people learn new skills that fit today's world. Unfortunately, I hear none of that Trump. He repeats the same lines over and over again. How does he plan on "renegotiating" trade deals and how, exactly, does he plan on incentivizing businesses to shutter foreign production and manufacture more here? Protectionist economics has a checkered history and certainly runs counter to decades of Republican and Democratic policy. Most of all, why is this man who brags about not paying taxes his supporters contribute to, boasts of his own foreign business holdings and produces many "Trump" products in countries not named the USA the avatar for these frustrations? Where is the real populist who could actually represent these people and not play them for fools? I wish I knew.
