Replies

I said "Your opinion of how Trump came across is not supported by any evidence outside left wing sources, not in almost all polls, not in social media, not anywhere but the Trump-haters."

You responded: "Rubbish. It is supported here in this conservative forum. It is supported by CNN's poll, it is even supported by conservatives on Fox and in print."

CNN, Murdoch's (Open borders) FOX and Former Cruz bots as well as DU trolls fall under the Trump Hater designation. Thank you for proving my point.

(This comment and response is redacted as there is no controversy here.)

I said: "Fact is Hillary went into the debate with high expectations and behind in the polls. She needed to take Trump out decisively. She failed."

You responded: "I did not say she succeeded, I said she was more likely of the two to have succeeded. The polls will tell us who succeeded and who failed."

The polls are all fake. As Gallop pointed out they can no longer do accurate polling. The Technology has changed and people are not willing to talk to pollsters hence the tiny populaiton sample sizes, online polls and the media using public relations firms hired by professional politicians like NBCWSJ keeps getting caught doing. The Fact is the script was written before the debate began that Hillary would win it (see CNN, etc) and that she would then recover and surge in the polls. Totally meaningless propaganda.

Want to see who they are really doing use objective evidence such as crowd size, number of small donors, enthusiasm, online social media activity, merchandise sales, etc. Polls are useless and proven useless by how far off they have been this season. Silver is batting zero for 12, They were off Brexit by 14, etc.

I said: "As such no matter your opinion of Trump’s boorishness, he did what he needed to do, scored many long term take-away points and did not harm himself."

You responded, "I contend that precisely the opposite was the case. I think he harms himself considerably and we will know when real polls, besides CNN, tell us whether his momentum continues or has been blunted. By the way, I did not use the word, "boorishness.""

The Trump haters have used the same arguments since before the Primary. Real world results show they have no effect. The term "boorish" etc is generic for the complaint of Trump's behavior that is not the same as the professional politician lawyers with teams of public relations people scripting their every word.

{Point redacted as no controversy is present}

I said: "The points you make have been hammered in hundreds of millions of dollars worth of attack ads- obviously they are not harming him."

You responded: "When a candidate commits a gaffe or otherwise validates a narrative about himself, the damage is always much, much worse. In this case, the narrative has been put out there to the tune, as you say, of hundreds of millions of dollars. The question is, did Trump validate that narrative?"

They did not before and they have not so far with Hundreds of millions of dollars spent in pushing the charge. No reason to expect the failed attacks will succeed this time either.

You said also" "We shall see, soon the polls will tell us."

No matter what the polls will try to help Hillary. That's what they are paid to do and there is no way to accurately poll today. So relying on the enemy to tell how it went is setting up to fail since they will lie.