almosttransparentblue comments

From CNN;

"Bill Clinton set up the public charity after he wrapped up his presidency in 2001 with the idea of bringing government, businesses and social groups together to tackle big problems. It was kind of a new idea at the time. On Monday, Clinton wrote in a post on Medium that the foundation is about "creating opportunities and solving problems faster, better, at lower cost so that more people are empowered to build better futures for themselves, their families and their communities." …

The foundation is made up of 11 non-profit groups that work on four major issues: global health and wellness, climate change, economic development and improving opportunities for girls and women. Health is a big focus. In more than 70 countries, according to the foundation, it helps 11.5 million people, including 800,000 children, with HIV/AIDS get their medication at 90% lower cost -- more than half the adults and three-quarters of the children getting treatment in the world today."

Even the AP story is written as a big "MAYBE?" w/o showing even one instance of anything wrong (though it heavily leans on the "... but what if?" BS line that isn't reporting or investigating but just mud-slinging).

And every person who has made a claim that theclintons have siphoned off money from the charity are truly represented by Trump and his people - any lie is good if it distracts attention from what you are.

**

You couldn't care less about people suffering or dying - and most of you want to see Trump and the Republicans in so that there will be even more suffering, torture, dying, killing, like nothing will ever touch you and those you care for.

Some Trump voters are ignorant, or simply and honestly stupid.

Not anyone here gets that or any other excuse.

You gotta be kidding.

From the Ap story itself:

"The 154 did not include U.S. federal employees or foreign government representatives. Clinton met with representatives of at least 16 foreign governments that donated as much as $170 million to the Clinton charity, but they were not included in AP's calculations because such meetings would presumably have been part of her diplomatic duties."

Matt Y points out:

"And the smoking gun is that Clinton went out of her way to help a Nobel Peace Prize winner who was having trouble with a foreign government?" And someone who they had known since Bill was governor.

The AP is trying to play the usual "both sides" game - and when one side Trump, it takes more than athumb on the scales of fairness.

What of this? When the press attacks Trump, it's "the media is absolutely biased!"

Until it runs this sort of BS story, then it's "See! The press must be believed!"

It's the same as their forebears - creationists - and how they view science. With utter contempt and dishonest manipulation.

You're not good citizens, and many of you are simply not good human beings of any sort.

I thought this was an internet frame-up. It's ben proven real - from a Trump herself.

http://www.snopes.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/trump-family-portrait.jpg

What's wrong with this picture?

My answer? Everything?

And people here claim they want this man to be President.

"Trump has cancelled his Colorado, Nevada and now Oregon events."

I guess this means Trump is washed up, or maybe fighting an undisclosed illness?

That's what any announcement by HRC has been interpreted by the Trump people here.

How utterly and openly dishonest they are, with others, each other, and especially themselves.

"We'll get rid of the crime," Trump promised. "You'll be able to walk down the street without getting shot."

"Right now you walk down the street, you get shot," he emphasized. "Look at the statistics. We'll straighten it out."

-- The worst major party candidate of all time, Donald Trump. A man without any values, save having been born rich enough not to fail.

(Trump supporters are welcome to post [legitimate & provable] quotes by Hillary they think demonstrate her lack of moral or intellectual fitness. I hope we don't get that stupid quote about Qaddafi twenty more times. though.)

Newest Trump unfunny:

"The New York Times reported on 20 August 2016 that, having employed a property information firm to search publicly available data on more than 30 U.S. properties connected to the Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump (including offices and golf courses), they found that companies belonging to Donald Trump have at least $650 million in debt, more than twice the amount shown in public filings made by his presidential campaign.

In addition to the $650 million in liabilities, the Times reported that "a substantial portion of [Trump's] wealth is tied up in three passive partnerships that owe an additional $2 billion to a string of lenders."

That level of debt that could significantly affect the valuation of Trump's wealth, an important factor given that the New York business magnate frequently cites his business acumen as one of his major qualifications for the presidency and often campaigns on a self-claimed spectacular real estate record, asserting he is worth $10 billion.

But estimating Trump's true net worth is a near impossible task for outsiders, as he has repeatedly declined to disclose his tax returns or allow an independent valuation of his assets. The Times noted that Trump's campaign filings show his businesses owed at least $315 million and that those filings appeared to be accurate, so their report was not in itself evidence of wrongdoing since Trump is not required to disclose all of his business activities. But the Times observed that their investigation "underscored how much of Mr Trump’s business remains shrouded in mystery" and "found that Mr Trump’s fortunes depend deeply on a wide array of financial backers, including one he has cited in attacks during his campaign."

Trump's lenders include one of the largest banks in China, a country the Republican candidate has often accused of being a U.S. economic foe, and the investment bank Goldman Sachs, a financial firm he has said influences his opponent, Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton."

At least the Clinton's aren't in debt, and have always paid their bills.

But up is down to Trump voters - this is proof of anything but what the facts plainly say.

I await their excuses, subject-changing, and outright falsehoods, but I'll certainly be more pleased if even one displays some reasoned response to today's embarrassment.

I won't hold my breath, since exactly zero comments about what looks like quite the scandal about Manafort have appeared.

And what about the Manafort possible scandal now? He's just cut and vanished.

Trump people here continue to pretend there is smoke over the Clinton Foundation, just because of the name attracting lies - despite all its dealing and finances being public knowledge.

C'mon! If Hillary had someone on her staff, stuffing envelopes even, that appeared this compromised and then was sidelined and then resigned, what would happen? What would Trump and the noise machine you get your POV from do?

And what do you (any of the Trump people here) say to it? I didn't give much credence to a single "black ledger" at first, but the Trump campaign's own actions suggest there something bad went on and they want to snuff out further investigation be the press.

Here's HRC's campaigns first serious salvo. Note that it asks Trump to clarify these matters (if with implied glee) w/o making accusations:

"Paul Manafort’s resignation is a clear admission that the disturbing connections between Donald Trump’s team and pro-Kremlin elements in Russia and Ukraine are untenable. But this is not the end of the story. It’s just the beginning. You can get rid of Manafort, but that doesn’t end the odd bromance Trump has with Putin. Trump still has to answer serious questions hovering over his campaign given his propensity to parrot Putin’s talking points, the roster of advisers like Carter Page and Mike Flynn with deep ties to Russia, the recent Russian government hacking and disclosure of Democratic Party records, and reports that Breitbart published articles advocating pro-Kremlin positions on Ukraine. It’s also time for Donald Trump to come clean on his own business dealings with Russian interests, given recent news reports about his web of deep financial connections to business groups with Kremlin ties."

Surprise me with candid responses that addresses the issue. I'll not only be surprised, but thank you if you do.

Lizz- "Trump realized that he needed to give a serious speech in Milwaukee two days after the events there but the positive response to it seems to have given the campaign more than it could have imagined, a clear path forward and gotten him firing on all cylinders (in a good way)."

He gave a ridiculous speech about African-Americans being lawless and rioters to a bunch of white people.

A nice summation of it from a non-Trump voter's POV:

"Mr Trump spoke for 75 minutes. But what he said at the outset was the core message. That was about growing fear of violence and his unique ability to end it. He claimed America is in crisis, communities in chaos, with attacks on police and terrorism in the cities that threaten America’s way of life. He cherrypicked crime statistics, not mentioning that crime in the US, including murder, is in historic decline, as it is in most democracies. He talked about death and violence, while promising to defend the right to bear the guns that inflict much of it. He said, extraordinarily but characteristically, that violence would end and safety would be restored overnight by the mere act of electing him. Anyone who wanted detail about how he would achieve this instant pacification of America would have been disappointed. But there is never any detail. Mr Trump’s campaign is about him, nothing more.

If there was one especially foul passage, it was the way Mr Trump then laid the blame for his crime wave at the door of illegal immigrants. The elision was deliberate. There were more of them than ever. They were roaming free to threaten peaceful citizens. He told the story of the killing of Sarah Root by an illegal immigrant and then charged that the Obama administration considered her “just one more American life that wasn’t worth protecting; one more child to sacrifice on the altar of open borders”. Plenty of politicians have run as law and order candidates, as Mr Trump said he is doing. But it is hard to think of any other senior politician in any democracy in the modern world who would stoop as low as that."

It's dog-whistles that are deep enough for even us ordinary humans to hear.

How awful to think well of such a speech!

A prize Steve Bannon quotes from 2014 (I truly dare any of the Trump people here to claim he's "mellowed" in any way!) It contains profanity, which I will of course edit myself.

“[The Republican] Leadership are all c----,” he wrote. “We should just go buck wild.”

“Let the grassroots turn on the hate because that’s the ONLY thing that will make them do their duty.”

What "duty" would that be, eh? Nothing that Lincoln or Teddy R. or Eisenhower or H.W. Bush would sanction, I'd say.

Texas...: "Polls taken in August mean nothing. ”

Keep grasping at those straws! First, may I point out that neither the Republicans in 1988 or the Democrats in 2008 were more than "concerned" about the polls then, while the Republican Party right now is in utter chaos, fearing a sweep even of the gerrymandered House.

Actually, the polls I can find have a Dukakis lead until July, when Lee Atwater ran the racist "Willie Horton" ads and successfully floated lies about Kitty burning a flag and Michael having received treatment for a mental illness. Of course, The elder Bush also did well in the debates, and by September had a lead he never relinquished.

The 2008 polls I've checked (Wiki) say you are mistaken there. McCain only polled slightly ahead (5%) in two August polls - Zogby and Gallup (both very among the least accurate polls of that year). After that, and in every other poll before as well, Obama led. So your simply wrong there (but welcome to catch me out for an apology if you can show I'm mistaken!)

Now, THIS set of polls?

HIllary has been under this sort of fire, withstanding every sort of lie, half-lie, and utterly disgusting rumor ("She's a lesbian!" "That's not Bill's daughter, because he's sterile! He had mumps!" are two captured just TODAY at a Trump rally) for about thirty years now.

And she's still standing tall, while many Republicans have cowered when facing her.

Even better, now the media will have to let her speak directly about what she believes and present herself for what she is - not the lies that Fox News or Breitbart or Drudge present hourly. When the public that is not insane (up to 77% of voters) see her for what she is, they'll see an intelligent and well-spoken woman with experience in leadership and a sense of what makes America great. (you needn't concur - I expect nothing from anyone still willing to vote Republican. Trump will show them what he is, and only very unhappy and/or dishonest people will choose such a deceitful, ugly, incompetent man over her.

I await the debates eagerly. Trump, even if hypnotized and sedated, will look like a tongue-tied orangutan next to her. If he even dares to show up.

If we can get the kids to the polls, we may see America turn the corner in overcoming the Republican plague of the 21st Century.

Outrider- Are you defending Qaddafi?

Do you have any notion of the Republican stance on Libya, or Qaddafi? Or Trump's shifting position - words w/o any thought at all?

What's Trump's plan for dealing with Daesh, etc,? Do you even know?

Do you recall what happened in Iraq to the equally horrid Saddam?

How about the aimless mess of a morass in Afghanistan left for President Obama?

Trump has been loud and clear about increased use of torture. Is that not more barbaric than one comment by Ms. Clinton? He's repeatedly suggested the war crime of collective punishment for family members linked to terrorists (which the law-abiding - and human - in the US military would be forced to disobey). Do you accept that?

Your comment here says you would because "ANYBODY has my vote over hillary."

Trump very much represent his fans.

Me? I'm more than aware of Hillary Clinton's past, and her deficiencies. And I have stated them honestly in my endorsement of her. Not only do I find her the better candidate, w/o the least bit of doubt, but with the potential to be pretty great. Especially if she doesn't seek some false "middle ground" with the insane, vicious, incompetent, lazy, utterly dishonest and often outright evil Republican Party of today.

JefferyDomer wrote:

"Polls mean nothing at this point, considering that alot of those people who would prefer Clinton probably won`t even go to the poles. While Trumps supporters will definately be voting, with friends!

I would really like to hear someones reasons why they prefer Clinton without mentioning Trump."

I will reply coldly, as I do not respect Jeffrey's opinions whatsoever, but on topic..

Polls have historically by this point in the election been very accurate, barring large and unforeseen problems (and those usually only for an incumbent running for a second term). We are looking at a very wide gap indeed, and certainly dislike for Trump is as strong as the large percentage of Romney voters who might have voted Trump in sad resignation. Romney lost by a large margin (Obama having the biggest margin since Eisenhower, as I recall), and neither he nor any of the other former Republican Presidents has made any move to support, and some that clearly oppose, Trump.

I myself voted for Bernie Sanders as a candidate, but I've followed Ms. Clinton's entire career. Her faults are those of having been, in the past certainly, far too cozy with the same people who are funding the Republican Party, while her strengths are that she has a basic decency that has shown even when she's played the role of the "consummate politician" - which is not a compliment.

She is also tougher than any other politician in America today, with a sense of what the basis of America is, and the determination to move it towards its goals or peace, justice, equality, compassion. She's do better (from my extreme outsider's POV) to listen less to those professing realpolitik to cover their self-interests and obsessions.

The Noise Machine of Fox, etc., has lied about her for nearly thirty years now. She's been accused, like the President, of every possible crime and perversion, and she's still standing and turning their attacks aside, now almost effortlessly since they are just repeating themselves without making any real effort or putting any energy into it.. Even the Trump people here don't really believe 99% of the garbage they repeat forever here - their only real objection is "She's an accomplished and successful politician!"

Such disingenuous nonsense would be laughable, were it not so ugly..

I'll be voting (soon) for Hillary Clinton, and she will win. She has reasonable economic plans that actual economists respect, though they may be a little TOO modest for my own taste. She will work to correct the troubles over immigration, and likely succeed, since the Republican Party (minus the insane Tea Partyers) knows they are doomed if they continue on the "white separatist" path Trump has put them firmly on. Even her basic foreign policy looks strong, though her belief in the efficacy of military force is a big concern. Still, she won't be stupid enough to repeat the mistake of the Republicans,

The polls likely reflect the endpoint of this election, though the debates may swing it even further. Whether Trump attends them or not.

Finally, it may well be that it is Trump voters who stay home in fairly large numbers. Especially if they take to their flinty, tiny hearts the claim that it's all "rigged." Trump is the most perfect personification ever of a candidate for his voters (more even than LaRouche or Ron Paul), they are lazy, prone to rages, and unable to bear being beaten (and many VERY unsavory qualities that are not directly connected to voting).

If the polls at the end of October say Donald is going to lose big, I would not be surprised if many simply stay home to rage, or watch TV anyway.

Sounds like what it is, the Administration being careful that Iran, run by a party nearly as badly-organized and untrustworthy as the US Republican Party, to keep is word by deed.

But no action would ever meet with the approval of today's Republican or "conservative" because, to them, ANY lie or ugliness is acceptable, even praiseworthy as "tough" and "clever." They never show any positive side, on any issue, because that would show "weakness"."

Being "conservative" today is to be beyond the possibility of error, always on the side of the angels, and yet always somehow unfairly cheated of your due. Hatred is what they offer those that disagree with them to the slightest degree, and flattery is the only coin they accept among themselves.

Serrano- "The problem is, there is no new honest Hillary Clinton. This is it.

This is interesting: " Trump: Obama, Clinton Iraq strategy was 'absolutely insane' "

LOOK AT THAT! A BROWN DOG! - But he makes no mention of how Trump's policy ideas would be better, or have been better. Or even if Trump has put out any ideas (I only recall him urging something like a "massive influx of troops" and "carpet bombing" and "torture and killings of the families of suspected terrorists" - Serrano likely knows not even that much).

Trump and his supporters would win the lottery every single time, if only they could choose the numbers the day after the winners are announced.

Breitbart?

Well, they've found the bottom of what a human being can do.

I thank the Trump campaign for this - it might well motivate the lazier among the Democratic voters to be sure to cast a ballot, however "in the bag" this election will seem by November: I'd have to violate Godwin's Law to describe anyone with Breitbart.

Please continue, Mr. Trump. Do not change course for ANY reason. You fans deserve it.

"WA4TKG "Rememer Benghazi !"

"...Rememer"

Republicans and all "conservatives" play off the playbook of "strategies" that creationists wrote up after "Intelligent Design" flopped (in court - it never got anywhere in Biology).

Here we see one of the many basic "strategies" - Once you tell a lie, it can be brought up again as fresh evidence at any time, in any situation, no matter how clearly it has been disproved or shown to be a a fabrication.

The Trump people here - and everywhere - have nothing, but lies and hatred and fear-mongering.

Have you seen any of the people here touting Trump's recently presented (via a sloooww reading from teleprompters) economic plan?

I haven't even read more than passing mentions by them of his "immigration" policies, What about that wall, which was going to, at one point, get "1o feet higher" since other Americans objected to it?

Because even they have no interest in the man's positions or plans.

It's "Hillary is bad - because she's bad - because we've been saying she's bad for twenty-five or more years!"

Can they put together five sentences on a single subject that are about Trump's policies and their feasibility and effects, and which aren't about how awful Ms. Clinton or somebody else is??

The following doesn't come from Fox "news" or Breitbart Bigly Lie factory, so the Trump people here had better avoid it. It relates verifiable facts, after all.

"Trump previously supported every single foreign policy decision he now decries.

Despite claiming daily that he opposed the Iraq War from the start, Trump endorsed deposing Saddam Hussein in a 2002 interview and there's no record of him opposing the war until after it had began. As for exiting the Iraq War, he said repeatedly in 2007 and 2008 that America should withdraw immediately and later recommended the same course for Afghanistan.

Turning to Libya, Trump recorded a video in 2011 demanding the Obama administration remove Gadhafi from power on humanitarian grounds. He went on to lie about his support for the Libya intervention in a Republican debate only to admit to it when confronted with footage of his old statements in a CBS interview. Finally, Trump called Mubarak's departure "a good thing" at the time before turning against the idea years later.

The result is that the only thing we know about Trump is that he's good at criticizing decisions by other presidents in hindsight. Unfortunately, this is not a very useful skill for the person tasked with making the decisions in the first place."

The candidate certainly represents to an Nth degree the sort of people willing to vote for him. That I will admit, sad, even sickening, though it is.

" (!)"

"The deception in the media lies in their ignoring of the third-party candidates who are taking more votes away than ever before, seemingly more from Clinton."

"Better than shooting up the Chicago neighborhood."

"Why not cozy up to Russia- it is less bad than China who keeps competently stealing."

"The elite establishment are shaking in their Armani slippers"

The results of a Trump Presidency, now fortunately for all life on earth next to impossible, are perfectly reflected by the comments made in support of him, both here and,... well,... everywhere they appear. At least the open racism isn't allowed -dog-whistles only. But the same lies passed around and around and around.

I wish that this regurgitating of lies and ugliness could be explained by simple stupidity or many people indeed having a very, very bad memory, but most clearly have lost touch with even a passing notion of their basic humanity. They want to win, but even more to see those they envy or hate dragged down, ruined, even worse things.

Rarely can a candidate so perfectly mirrored the ugliness, pettiness, meanness, cruelty, and humorlessness of his supporters, and supporters far better informed than, say, Wallace in '68. There's no real excuse for any of them though I have some measure of pity for more than a few. They're so stubborn in the fearfulness.

Actually, only one such candidate comes to mind. That turned out rather badly for that particular country, as history tells.

LFR - It's nonsense, however titillating.

http://www.snopes.com/2016/08/15/ivanka-trump-socializes-with-wendi-deng/

"If it's too good to be true, run a search - or at least check Snopes.com" is my Net motto. They sometimes err, but only in being too generous when lies cannot be disproved with evidence.

:)

Madverts- It's still not well-confirmed, however dirty it looks. Trump Inc.'s relations with the Putin Gang are suspicious as heck, but I'm waiting for better evidence than some "entries" in a "black ledger," however incriminating.

Trump read from teleprompters like the print was a little too small for him, moving his head left and right like he was watching a very, very slow ping-pong match.

To the people still professing support for this ridiculous man - what do you think of this line:

"In the old days, when we won a war, to the victor belonged the spoils. Instead, all we got from Iraq and our adventures in the Middle East was death destruction and tremendous financial loss.” Troops could have been stationed at oil fields and stabilized the country,"

I thought The Iraq War! and Iraq War II - Electric Bugaloo! was something other than "blood for oil." Well, was it? Do you agree with this Trumpian idea of what war should be?

I'd think even worse of anyone who did, but the very idea of isolated troops protecting oil fields? Why not just paint glow-in-the-dark targets on them as well?

Now, I know Trump never thinks twice, but he READ that off a teleprompter! OTHER people, professional Republican speechwriters, wrote such a thing and expect, probably justifiably, that it appeals to the average Trump voter.

Are the Trump people here just as poor at thinking things out?

Yeah, yeah, yeah... "but she's the devil!"

How do you look at yourselves w/o laughing... or crying?

Thank you.

Wc626: "Great legendary American icon, Clint Eastwood supports Trump. Says a lot ."

Touting a celebrity endorsement as "saying a lot"!

You gotta be kidding us!

Mr. Eastwood made quite a few fine movies, but he also talked to an empty chair on national TV in a way that even the people who let me do it have never bragged about, or even mentioned.

**

Serrano: I eagerly await the debates, though Mr. Trump, knowing he cannot do other than end up looking both overmatched, unprepared, and probably ridiculous seems unlike to participate.

wildwest - I object strenuously to your comment. It is offensive in the extreme.

Do you really want the police to use torture, legally, on suspects?

That would be a pretty awful thing.

Fox News is neither for Hillary or Trump, the difference is they give both sides equal access, but Hillary is and has been dodging them for years, since FOX reaches a bigger audience, "

I doubt that many people agree with you on this. Fox news is a disgrace in every way.

" It's very simple, if you are innocent, you have nothing to hide!" As Sam Spade pointed out, everybody's got something to hide. Trump can show her up by releasing his tax returns, as promised. He won't, because likely Trump has more to hide than possible anyone else in the USA.

** I also note that you missed, or neglected, my request, repeated here:

"I request that you let us all in on some of the places you have worked - and your position there. Please don't think that any private information is being asked. or required. But I am not the only one who simply finds your claims to be difficult to believe."

I presume that you also are innocent and have nothing to hide. I am honestly interested.

bass4funk: "Exactly and on point, the media is 110% on Hillary's side, I got a headache from all of this and most of it from how the media has been behaving, in 35 years, I have seen the media so openly in the tank for someone, if they would hit Hillary as hard as we hit Trump, we could get more insight to the criminal acts from what it looks like a very sly dealing with the DOJ, the media should be slamming her, Trump should be slamming her, she is just abut done on the grill and to be honest, Trump is missing THE golden opportunity to nail her to the wall."

First of all, that's one heck of a sentence for anyone who claims - a lot of times - to be an experienced journalist.

I request that you let us all in on some of the places you have worked - and your position there. Please don't think that any private information is being asked. or required. But I am not the only one who simply finds your claims to be difficult to believe.

You clearly have no idea of journalistic impartiality now, certainly. Us "Libs" are always in the wrong, minions or dupes working for this vast conspiracy. A vast conspiracy so powerful and ruthless that it somehow allows a Republican House and Senate, which have conducted endless (and entirely fruitless) investigations of every possibly odd occurrence during President Obama's tenure - and of course many more that have had no foundation at all. As well as allowing a right-wing media machine, led by the both ridiculous and execrable Fox "News," which runs any possible slur against every single Democrat while covering for every single Republican or conservative.

But that's probably just how clever these devils are, eh?

The nation would not survive a Trump-figureheaded Republican administration, but it seems more than just unlikely now that we will need to worry about such a horror.

Also, do you think Trump will release his taxes?

Even more germane, given this quote - "Trump is missing THE golden opportunity to nail her to the wall." - will he agree to the debates arranged and moderated by the CPD ("headed by Frank Fahrenkopf, a former head of the Republican National Committee, and former White House press secretary Michael D. McCurry." - wiki)?

If he doesn't, he may see a truly historic defeat, since Americans do not like cowards very much. If he does, I have more than every confidence the HRC will clean his clock in a historic manner.

Awaiting your reply. :)

With a Democratic Senate and a House partially trimmed of gerrymandered Republicans, there's plenty of work (something that scares the Neo-Know-Nothings of the "Tea Party" more than atheists and Muslims combined!) to get done.

But, really, what of HRC's corruption could you wow us with? Breitbart lies? Hannity medical "reports"? "Before It's News" (which Trump actually used a graph from!!!) YouTube videos by truly ugly and demented nobodies?

Someone brought up the "child molester defender!" bit of BS here already, you know. Try another, if you try at all.

Have you got anything? Nothing at all real (that I don't know about), I'm more than sure.

Probably it would just be a rehashing of the same list of debunked nonsense the Republicans never tire of playing Chinese Whispers with.

Anyone who's read the US news has seen her vilified literally daily by Fox pseudo-news. The NYT and Washington Post are so "in her pocket" that they ran extensive exposes on several items (all turning out to be ramped-up nonsense.) After the failure of the Bengazi! hearings and the miserable who-cares of the trumped-up email scandal! people are tired of being lied to.

As Hillary gets airtime and presents her own case directly, even the mud that managed to stick will fall away.

The debates will see her at her best and strongest, and Trump at his weakest - if Trump doesn't flat-out chicken out (which would sink him literally everywhere.

JefferyDomer-

"And the perverted media deemed this interpretation to infer he was talking about menstruation. That was definately not were my mind was!"

"I've heard the word racist thrown around alot. I wasn't aware that Mexico or Islam was a race."

"His 2nd ammendment comments were taken clearly out of context like many other examples. "

You gotta be putting us all on.

Trump people here (and everywhere - there isn't much "range" among them - by any measure) play what they think is a smart game. Things are always 100% clear and true to them, and the rest of us are fools or part of that "grand conspiracy" just for not accepting whatever they say as the perfect truth.

Look at the excuses wrapped as comments here. Every single pro-Trump person says nothing more than "They're cheating!"

-"Rampant mainstream media bias is what everyone is talking about."

-"It seems pretty clear the media loves twisting his words." (debunked urban legends follow as "evidence," but murder only suggested.)

or "It's a conspiracy!"

-"So now it's the elite establishment against the non elite establishment." ("pot "declares us the "kettle" insult follows)

Only one pre-declaration of victory today, though: "And it will play right into his hands. People know whats [sic] happening, "

They got nothing - and they're gonna play it, by gosh!

Hillary may only turn out to be a moderately-good President (her past connections to Wall St. and her previously hawkish attitude are worrying), but there's a fair chance that she may be quite good as well. My expectations are moderate (not too low), and I'm very sure I won't be disappointed.

** I would ask the pro-Trump people here to provide us all with more details about the reasoning, and the sources it's based on. Only Lizz suggested one (Pence's, to me, ridiculous and boring speech, which was reported just as widely as it deserved - identically to similar speeches by our Mr. Kaine and certainly "quite literally" saw the "light of day.")