Author Topic: Trump completely destroyed Clinton (Read 4897 times)

jude2 · « **Reply #1 on:** October 10, 2016, 06:17:21 PM »

No doubt. She won the first one, but he destroyed her in this one. I turned on CNN and they said Clinton won. WTF are they watching.

Vince G, CSN MFT · « **Reply #2 on:** October 10, 2016, 06:31:19 PM »

Nothing like 2 Edoms year each other apart

Eric2 · « **Reply #3 on:** October 10, 2016, 06:32:36 PM »

Quote from: jude2 on October 10, 2016, 06:17:21 PM

No doubt. She won the first one, but he destroyed her in this one. I turned on CNN and they said Clinton won. WTF are they watching.

CNN= Clinton News Network

Kwon · « **Reply #4 on:** October 10, 2016, 06:37:39 PM »

Quote from: Vince G, CSN MFT on October 10, 2016, 06:31:19 PM

Nothing like 2 Edoms year each other apart

They sure are yearing at eachother!

rooseveltdunn · « **Reply #5 on:** October 10, 2016, 06:38:46 PM »

He detailed no Health Care plan, and she smashed him for it. He brought up irrelevant allegations about Bill Clinton that made him look weak. He complained about no email question right after an email question. The rest were ad hoc statements. In what world did he "destroy" Clinton? Trump partisans clearly have different expectations and standards than Clinton supporters or undecideds. Trump was short on substance (He'd replace Obamacare with something great that was magically cheaper! He'd do great things for poor people living in inner cities!), and threatened to jail the person he was running against, if he ran. Neither of which really seemed to accomplish anything.....if you base the quality of debates on sound bytes and empty rhetoric then maybe I could see why you feel that way. But honestly Trump did not specify how he plans to improve things, he was like a barking dog with no coherent policy proposals.

Redux · « **Reply #6 on:** October 10, 2016, 06:55:05 PM »

he smacked that bitch around like a two dollar whore

240 is Back · « **Reply #7 on:** October 10, 2016, 07:34:50 PM »

does anyone have a scientific poll showing Hillary lost? I've seen 2 showing Hillary won by a decent margin.

Aside from "online polls where you can vote 1200 times", I haven't seen Trump winning on any polls. Rather, he did better than his first debate, and she just coasted on a huge lead thanks to his recent mis-steps, so it was more of a sloppy immature draw.

I think he wanted to have a rape accuser slap Bill, but he wasn't allowed to have them in his Family box like he wanted. Jerry Springer all the way, baby!

Mr.1derful · « **Reply #8 on:** October 10, 2016, 07:43:08 PM »

While the Muppet Show debate goes on, a real leader speaks.

tom joad · « **Reply #9 on:** October 10, 2016, 07:45:56 PM »

great strategy by Hillary not to make Donald completely meltdown last night because she knows that she's cakewalking to an easy V as long as Trump is her opponent.

chaos · « **Reply #10 on:** October 10, 2016, 07:50:17 PM »

Quote from: 240 is Back on October 10, 2016, 07:34:50 PM

does anyone have a scientific poll showing Hillary lost? I've seen 2 showing Hillary won by a decent margin.

Aside from "online polls where you can vote 1200 times", I haven't seen Trump winning on any polls. Rather, he did better than his first debate, and she just coasted on a huge lead thanks to his recent mis-steps, so it was more of a sloppy immature draw.

I think he wanted to have a rape accuser slap Bill, but he wasn't allowed to have them in his Family box like he wanted. Jerry Springer all the way, baby!

Can you describe the requirements for a poll to be scientific?

Master Blaster · « **Reply #11 on:** October 10, 2016, 07:55:09 PM »

Quote from: chaos on October 10, 2016, 07:50:17 PM

Can you describe the requirements for a poll to be scientific?

Classic

240 is Back · « **Reply #12 on:** October 10, 2016, 08:13:19 PM »

Quote from: chaos on October 10, 2016, 07:50:17 PM

Can you describe the requirements for a poll to be scientific?

Large sample group with margin of error and explanation of their polling methods.

The voluntary polls are completely poor, they always reflect the preference of the people viewing that site. Drudge polls will alway show trump win. Msnbc polls always have Hilary win.

chaos · « **Reply #13 on:** October 10, 2016, 08:24:43 PM »

Quote from: 240 is Back on October 10, 2016, 08:13:19 PM

Large sample group with margin of error and explanation of their polling methods.

The voluntary polls are completely poor, they always reflect the preference of the people viewing that site. Drudge polls will alway show trump win. Msnbc polls always have Hilary win.

So the scientific polls Clinton News Network does, that you constantly quote, aren't really scientific since those people volunteer for the poll and chances are highly likely that they support Killary since they are obviously watching cnn or on their website. $:-\$

I have a cure for this though, since you obviously have too much time on your hands, why don't you call 1,500 random people in the US and ask them who they are voting for?

SF1900 · « **Reply #14 on:** October 10, 2016, 08:29:14 PM »

Quote from: chaos on October 10, 2016, 08:24:43 PM

So the scientific polls Clinton News Network does, that you constantly quote, aren't really scientific since those people volunteer for the poll and chances are highly likely that they support Killary since they are obviously watching cnn or on their website. $:-\$

I have a cure for this though, since you obviously have too much time on your hands, why don't you call 1,500 random people in the US and ask them who they are voting for?

From an empirical standpoint, polls on either side are useless. There is no way to take into account confounding variables which may influence results.

Redux · « **Reply #15 on:** October 10, 2016, 08:29:45 PM »

You can easily tell who won the debate simply by looking at slick willie and the c unt's face while it was going on
They both looked like they were going to stroke out while Trump was bitch slapping them both around

Walter Sobchak · « **Reply #16 on:** October 10, 2016, 08:41:46 PM »

Quote from: chaos on October 10, 2016, 08:24:43 PM

So the scientific polls Clinton News Network does, that you constantly quote, aren't really scientific since those people volunteer for the poll and chances are highly likely that they support Killary since they are obviously watching cnn or on their website. $:-\$

I have a cure for this though, since you obviously have too much time on your hands, why don't you call 1,500 random people in the US and ask them who they are voting for?

See he's like a retard with one thought, he repeats it ad nauseam, because he wouldn't know "scientific" if he fucking fell over it.

"Have you seen my scientific baseball?"

"Have you seen my scientific baseball?"

"Have you seen my scientific baseball?"

el numero uno · « **Reply #17 on:** October 10, 2016, 08:56:10 PM »

Quote from: chaos on October 10, 2016, 08:24:43 PM

So the scientific polls Clinton News Network does, that you constantly quote, aren't really scientific since those people volunteer for the poll and chances are highly likely that they support Killary since they are obviously watching cnn or on their website. $:-\$

I have a cure for this though, since you obviously have too much time on your hands, why don't you call 1,500 random people in the US and ask them who they are voting for?

He's right about those poll, the results are biased.

el numero uno · « **Reply #18 on:** October 10, 2016, 09:08:42 PM »

Quote from: Jim Rockford on October 10, 2016, 08:15:42 PM

A sample group can never be big enough or from a large enough area unless it comprises a million people with every state represented

Not true at all.

el numero uno · « **Reply #19 on:** October 10, 2016, 09:14:07 PM »

Quote from: rooseveltdunn on October 10, 2016, 06:38:46 PM

He detailed no Health Care plan, and she smashed him for it. He brought up irrelevant allegations about Bill Clinton that made him look weak. He complained about no email question right after an email question. The rest were ad hoc statements. In what world did he "destroy" Clinton? Trump partisans clearly have different expectations and standards than Clinton supporters or undecideds. Trump was short on substance (He'd replace Obamacare with something great that was magically cheaper! He'd do great things for poor people living in inner cities!), and threatened to jail the person he was running against, if he ran. Neither of which really seemed to accomplish anything.....if you base the quality of debates on sound bytes and empty rhetoric then maybe I could see why you feel that way. But honestly Trump did not specify how he plans to improve things, he was like a barking dog with no coherent policy proposals.

The debate started with questions about the leaked tape. The guy there even suggested Trump sexually assaulted women once. Then Trump attacks Hillary for all her corruption involvements, and only then scandals become a negligible topic?

In my opinion, Hillary was extremely uncomfortable and nervous, despite being a public figure for decades. That's why I said Trump destroyed Hillary.

240 is Back · « **Reply #20 on:** October 10, 2016, 09:16:05 PM »

In 2012, all we heard was just how wrong all the polls were. But election night we learned how scary accurate they were.

honest · « **Reply #21 on:** October 10, 2016, 09:39:03 PM »

Both candidates are terrible but are true representatives of modern America, where more people break down the debate as they would American idol rather than focusing on policy.

Tapeworm · « **Reply #22 on:** October 10, 2016, 10:09:59 PM »

Trump has a dreadful case of Bushitis. He just can't form a coherent sentence. He sounds like a fucking idiot. Hillary is so full of shit it's coming out her ears and ought to be in prison.

Kwon · « **Reply #23 on:** October 10, 2016, 10:18:31 PM »

Quote from: Tapeworm on October 10, 2016, 10:09:59 PM

Trump has a dreadful case of Bushitis. He just can't form a coherent sentence. He sounds like a fucking idiot. Hillary is so full of shit it's coming out her ears and ought to be in prison.

Are you saying a better president than those two would be Julio Cesar or Roelly Winklaar?

muscleman-2013 · « **Reply #24 on:** October 10, 2016, 11:41:20 PM »

America will be in WWIII if Killary gets elected. You libtards won't be laughing when they conscript your faggy asses.

But don't worry, all the OLD libtard fags will be sitting at home watching it on TV.