TexasCHLforum.com

Was there a revival of "American Idol" or something on last night?

This is ridiculous, to base an impression of a candidate's fitness for office based in these TV "reality" wannabe shows. No President "faithfully executes the office by these kinds of foolish antics. These shows attract eyeballs the same as NASCAR events, hoping for a huge crash, fire and smoke, like President Ford's gaffe on Poland, a meltdown where someone starts ripping their notes and screaming "What difference at this point does it make?"

It's been true since the dawn of the TV age..... turn on a camera, and people start acting like Jerry Lewis's spastic.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... slide.html


Note that the only poll that shows Witch as the winner is CNN, and look at their sample size/how fast they cranked it out.

All polls with sizable numbers of voters go to Trump. Some have sample sizes in millions and are leftist leaning at that.

Here is an interesting take on the "debate" from Scott Adams (Dilbert):

Trump and Clinton debated each other for the first time last night. Here’s how I score the night.

Clinton won on points. She had more command of the details and the cleaner answers. Trump did a lot of interrupting and he was defensive. If this were a college debate competition, Clinton would be declared the winner. I call that victory on the 2D chess board. But voters don’t care about facts and debating style. They care about how they feel. So let’s talk about that.
......

http://blog.dilbert.com/post/1510077962 ... rst-debate

JALLEN wrote:Here is an interesting take on the "debate" from Scott Adams (Dilbert):

Trump and Clinton debated each other for the first time last night. Here’s how I score the night.

Clinton won on points. She had more command of the details and the cleaner answers. Trump did a lot of interrupting and he was defensive. If this were a college debate competition, Clinton would be declared the winner. I call that victory on the 2D chess board. But voters don’t care about facts and debating style. They care about how they feel. So let’s talk about that.
......

http://blog.dilbert.com/post/1510077962 ... rst-debate

She could have easily been drugged up enough to last 90 minutes. I wonder where she is today? The latest medical theory is that she suffers from Myasthenia Gravis...

Charles L. Cotton wrote:I can't watch Hillary any longer. I'm recording it, but I can't watch that professional liar one more minute.

Too much like work?

allisji wrote:Trump was underprepared. He had so many missed opportunities. He let her off the hook for the emails, he didn't drive home his points on the Iranian nuke deal, on North Korea, etc. He didn't make his point on how her and Obama's Iraq policies created the rise of isis or how us leaving tanks and weapons in Iraq helped to arm isis. She talked about how her tax plan would benefit workers. How? By taxing us till we can't pay our mortgages and giving out entitlements to people who are blatantly abusing the system? I felt like I was watching Trump hit a bunch of foul balls. He just never was able to make solid contact.

I had to turn it off. I couldn't listen to him say "so many" or "so much" one more time. If you can't come prepared with hard facts and numbers, why even bother showing up? I'll still vote for him, but he lost ground with me last night.

TexasTornado wrote:

allisji wrote:Trump was underprepared. He had so many missed opportunities. He let her off the hook for the emails, he didn't drive home his points on the Iranian nuke deal, on North Korea, etc. He didn't make his point on how her and Obama's Iraq policies created the rise of isis or how us leaving tanks and weapons in Iraq helped to arm isis. She talked about how her tax plan would benefit workers. How? By taxing us till we can't pay our mortgages and giving out entitlements to people who are blatantly abusing the system? I felt like I was watching Trump hit a bunch of foul balls. He just never was able to make solid contact.

I had to turn it off. I couldn't listen to him say "so many" or "so much" one more time. If you can't come prepared with hard facts and numbers, why even bother showing up? I'll still vote for him, but he lost ground with me last night.

I agree he did not look presidential but no way I'm going to vote for the established government employee. Actually I did not watch the the whole debate, I was turned on my side listening to it while in bed. I can't stand to look at her lying face!

I was at IPDA match at FGC.

From what I notice, Trump voters DON"T CARE what the news says. They lie and the voters know it!

philip964 wrote:This morning on the Today show they had "Fact Checking" Donald Trump said crime was up in NYC. Fact Checking = False!!

Crime is down in NYC since 2010 is what they then said.

My memory Trump did not give a time frame when he said crime was up in NYC. I am sure he was pointing to a study that shows crime is up since 2014, since Furguson when the Obama and the Federal Government went to war against local police.

This is how the news is today, They do anything to help Hillary win.

Fact checking is just another way to lie now.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/nyc-officia ... 1451959203

From the January 4, 2016 article:

Overall, reports of such crimes fell 1.7% in 2015 from a year earlier, bringing the two-year drop to 5.8% since Mayor Bill de Blasio and Police Commissioner William Bratton took office....

But while crime in the city continued its historic downward trend, led largely by a drop in burglaries and stolen vehicles, three of the most serious crimes rose in 2015: homicides were up 5.1%, rapes 6.3% and robberies 2.1%. Also, crime increased in two of the city’s five boroughs: Manhattan and the Bronx.

And shortly before that press conference, Raymond Kelly, a former NYPD Commissioner, made waves contending that crime stats were being underreported by the City.

So you're slightly less likely to have your car stolen, but you're more likely to be raped or killed? Oh sure! Sign us up!

Given that distinction between "crime" and "violent crime," I'll give that fact-check to Trump.

I had made up my mind who I was going to vote for at the beginning, which was Mr. Trump. I really don't care how articulate he is compared to Hillary, who I place as the chief subject/protagonist in Revelation 17:3-5. Even as all of the Media seek to destroy him, this just makes him more appealing as a candidate to me. His chief draw to me was him being a true outsider. I am so tired of the Republican bending a knee to the Democrat, due to their fear of being called, racist, sexist, homophobic are whatever moniker the Democrat wants to hang on my candidate. Fight back and quit crawling to the favor of the media, is my cry.

I did not watch it. I had band practice for one thing, but wouldn't watch it if at home anyway, for the same reason I never watched American Idol or Survivor type shows.

For another, nothing that either might say or do is going to change my vote, even if Trump had mooned the world on live TV. I presume he didn't.

I've told my favorite wife that if I don't make it to the election, to make sure the Commies formerly known as Democrats don't sneak an absentee ballot for the Bitch of Benghazi in my name!

JALLEN wrote:Here is an interesting take on the "debate" from Scott Adams (Dilbert):

Trump and Clinton debated each other for the first time last night. Here’s how I score the night.

Clinton won on points. She had more command of the details and the cleaner answers. Trump did a lot of interrupting and he was defensive. If this were a college debate competition, Clinton would be declared the winner. I call that victory on the 2D chess board. But voters don’t care about facts and debating style. They care about how they feel. So let’s talk about that.
......

http://blog.dilbert.com/post/1510077962 ... rst-debate

LOL, yes! This is exactly what she looked like!

"Clinton’s smile seemed forced, artificial, and frankly creepy. I’m already hearing on Twitter that mentioning a woman’s smile is sexist. I understand the point. But when someone goes full Joker-face and tests the uncanny valley hypothesis at the same time, that’s a bit different from telling a woman to “smile more.” My neighbor Kristina hypothesized that Botox was making her smile look unnatural. Science tells us that when a person’s mouth smiles, but their eyes don’t match the smile, they look disingenuous if not creepy. Botox on your crow’s feet lines around your eyes can give that effect. But whatever the reason, something looked off to me."

Glockster wrote:

JALLEN wrote:Here is an interesting take on the "debate" from Scott Adams (Dilbert):

Trump and Clinton debated each other for the first time last night. Here’s how I score the night.

Clinton won on points. She had more command of the details and the cleaner answers. Trump did a lot of interrupting and he was defensive. If this were a college debate competition, Clinton would be declared the winner. I call that victory on the 2D chess board. But voters don’t care about facts and debating style. They care about how they feel. So let’s talk about that.
......

http://blog.dilbert.com/post/1510077962 ... rst-debate

LOL, yes! This is exactly what she looked like!

"Clinton’s smile seemed forced, artificial, and frankly creepy. I’m already hearing on Twitter that mentioning a woman’s smile is sexist. I understand the point. But when someone goes full Joker-face and tests the uncanny valley hypothesis at the same time, that’s a bit different from telling a woman to “smile more.” My neighbor Kristina hypothesized that Botox was making her smile look unnatural. Science tells us that when a person’s mouth smiles, but their eyes don’t match the smile, they look disingenuous if not creepy. Botox on your crow’s feet lines around your eyes can give that effect. But whatever the reason, something looked off to me."

Maybe it was her body double standing in for her.

My wife made the comment that her eyes looked weird somehow, artificial in their movements. I watched about 20 minutes of it and gave up on Trump making any substantive policy statements. I need to hear more detail on his plans to "make America Great Again", not just repeating the same old talking points. Yes, I will vote against HRC but I still find it amazing that with over 300 M people in the U.S.A. these are our choices.