Trump Will be President

[grzegorz]

https://youtu.be/s7uScWHcTzk

[Peacedog]

I felt the debate was basically a draw. Trump did better in the first half and Hillary in the second.

Holt gave Hillary a bit of a pass with the lack of followup questions, but her answers were more detailed.

My personal thoughts are that the debates are essentially high risk for both candidates due to the narrow margins at the present in polls with Hillary taking slightly more risk in participating.

The first to make a serious mistake will probably lose the election.

At present it is a stalemate.

[Steve James]

You mean Trump didn't "lose," but c'mon just putting him on the same stage was his win. Yeah, he does much better when he doesn't act like Trump, but the second half showed he has to.

I liked his I didn't pay taxes because he's smart unlike the rest of the fools who pay them. He should be proud to share his tax returns, and show how smart he's been.

[Mr_Wood]

It was all incredibly bitchy, when Hilary stated 'Americas word is good' was an interesting moment, who was she appealing to here ?

[Steve James]

People who think having a good word is appealing?

[Steve James]

Afa who Clinton's overall performance appealed to, it's interesting that the most conservative of newspapers seem to be backing Clinton over Trump --and not for her bitchiness

Hillary Clinton picked up two unprecedented endorsements, continuing the streak of good news for the campaign after a strong performance at Monday night’s presidential debate. The Arizona Republic, a stalwartly conservative paper, and former Virginia Senator John Warner, a revered figure within the GOP, threw their support behind the former Secretary of State.

The Arizona Republic’s endorsement marks the first time the paper has backed a Democratic candidate for the presidency in its 126-year history. “Since The Arizona Republic began publication in 1890, we have never endorsed a Democrat over a Republican for president. Never. This reflects a deep philosophical appreciation for conservative ideals and Republican principles,” the paper’s editorial board wrote. “This year is different. The 2016 Republican candidate is not conservative and he is not qualified. That’s why, for the first time in our history, The Arizona Republic will support a Democrat for president.”

And that was only today. It's been a pattern. For ex.,

Another Republican-leading editorial board is asking its readers to support Hillary Clinton.

The Cincinnati Enquirer on Friday night became the latest Republican-supporting major media outlet to argue against a Donald Trump presidency, with the endorsement coming in the crucial swing state of Ohio, where Trump holds a small lead over his Democratic rival. Trump and Clinton will face off Monday night in the first debate of the general election season.

"The Enquirer has supported Republicans for president for almost a century—a tradition this editorial board doesn’t take lightly. But this is not a traditional race, and these are not traditional times. Our country needs calm, thoughtful leadership to deal with the challenges we face at home and abroad. We need a leader who will bring out the best in all Americans, not the worst. That’s why there is only one choice when we elect a president in November: Hillary Clinton," the Enquirer's editorial board wrote.

"Trump brands himself as an outsider untainted by special interests, but we see a man utterly corrupted by self-interest. His narcissistic bid for the presidency is more about making himself great than America," the editorial board wrote.

The Enquirer's joins the Houston Chronicle and Dallas Morning News as traditionally conservative media outlets that cannot abide a Trump presidency. The Chronicle labeled the Republican candidate a "danger to the republic" in endorsing Clinton, while the News called the Democratic nominee the "only serious candidate on the presidential ballot."

While not surprising, Clinton also earned the support of the New York Times, which made its endorsement Saturday afternoon. The Times pitched its editorial at readers who may be wary of Clinton, arguing that she is best qualified to handle America's challenges, while branding Trump the "worst nominee put forward by a major party in modern American history.

"Through war and recession, Americans born since 9/11 have had to grow up fast, and they deserve a grown-up president. A lifetime’s commitment to solving problems in the real world qualifies Hillary Clinton for this job, and the country should put her to work," the Times editorial board wrote.

Trump has yet to receive a major endorsement in the general election cycle but did win some support in the primaries. In a much-mocked editorial, the New York Observer, owned by son-in-law Jared Kushner, argued for Trump to lead the Republican Party in order to "make America great again.

Why is that happening? They've gone with every Republican candidate for the last 100 years.

[grzegorz]

It was all incredibly bitchy, when Hilary stated 'Americas word is good' was an interesting moment, who was she appealing to here ?

The interesting thing is that Trump is now telling Poland that he strongly supports NATO and will strengthen Poland because they pay their fair share of course.

[Mr_Wood]

People who think having a good word is appealing?

lol appealing to the good people not many of them left nowadays.

[grzegorz]

Of course everyone is putting a spin on the debates, including the Taliban whom I actually agree with, but I go by the candidates themselves and from what I've heard from both of them it sounds Trump wasn't as happy as he was pretending to be. You even see it on Melania's face when they left.

[grzegorz]

Look at what the candidates themselves say and do, -- forget the commentary, videos, news, media, and everyone else in the entire world. Just take the candidates (one at a time) and listen and observe and form an independent opinio of them.


Nah, what am I saying... that would be sheer Utopia. Carry on...




P.S. I was thinking this morning, "what's the antonym for the word "integrity?", and for some reason the word "Trump" kept popping up. Weird, huh.

After watching Frontline and Trump's life story I would have to agree with you.

[Bao]

The Enquirer has supported Republicans for president for almost a century—a tradition this editorial board doesn’t take lightly. But this is not a traditional race, and these are not traditional times. Our country needs calm, thoughtful leadership to deal with the challenges we face at home and abroad. We need a leader who will bring out the best in all Americans, not the worst. That’s why there is only one choice when we elect a president in November: Hillary Clinton," the Enquirer's editorial board wrote.

"Trump brands himself as an outsider untainted by special interests, but we see a man utterly corrupted by self-interest. His narcissistic bid for the presidency is more about making himself great than America," the editorial board wrote.

I was surprised that Clinton was so negative in the debate. All she did was saying negative things about her opponent. All of her words are all true, but that is not the point. There was extremely little of substance in what she said. There were no real solutions. She didn't feel very president-like. And she didn't feel like someone who "would bring out the best in all Americans."

And I actually don't believe that Trump does it for himself. I think that this egotistical nut really believe that he can make America big and he wants to become the biggest superhero president of all time.

How anyone would want to vote for a president that thinks it's good to not pay tax and thinks that it's okay to not pay hard workers anything for any kind of reason though is kind of mind boggling. Seriously mind boggling.

Ok, if the Americans believe that he made a lousy job as a president, he won't get paid.
What would he think about this? Would he accept this deal? I would think not.

[Steve James]

He was just kidding, of course.

Donald Trump bragged about the support he received from Christian conservatives at an event in Iowa on Wednesday night, and even asked those backers to raise their hands.

Then he asked audience members who were not Christian to identify themselves.

“Raise your hand if you’re not a Christian conservative. I want to see this, right? Oh there’s a a couple people, that’s all right,” Trump said as he dismissively waved a hand. “I think we’ll keep them, right? Should we keep them in the room, yes? I think so.”

Trump appeared to be joking, but the crack didn’t sit well with many online:

Video
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/don ... a52d2ce788?

[grzegorz]

Taliban leaders watched U.S. presidential debate, blast 'non-serious' Trump

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-e ... SKCN11Y1I0

[grzegorz]

https://youtu.be/EQsqxSKetKM

[wiesiek]

most funny / for outsiders/ is -
that,
regardless all minuses of his,
- Americans voters - be hold -
- he can win