[img]/images/Show_Trial_Trump_Debate.jpg[/img]

The Great People's Show Trial over Criminal Trump, aka "Second Presidential Debate" has just ended.

Its first several minutes gave me the goosebumps, so much it reminded me of the glorious show trials under Comrade Stalin: Hillary as a prosecutor, with both moderators as her faithful assistants, leveling trumped-up charges against the designated Enemy of the People™. Wasting no time, they took turns accusing Trump of terrible deeds and demanding that he repent and crawl on his knees before Hillary, begging for mercy.

That was promptly followed by a Muslim question, formulated along the lines of "Have you already stopped being an Islamophobe?" It seemed that very soon Trump would be summarily declared guilty of counter-revolutionary sabotage and taken out before the firing squad and executed right on that stage with all the severity of revolutionary justice.

But then Trump had the gall to go on offensive. He started rattling the three prosecutors, preventing them from doing their revolutionary duty, which was to destroy him in front of the world TV audiences. To be fair, they tried to continue reading their list of charges but they miserably failed. At one point Martha Raddatz even deployed the famous Candy Crowley maneuver, trying to debate Trump on Syria. But her Candy Crowley impersonation failed as well. To use Trump's favorite buzzword, it was a disaster.

To sum it up, the debate started with all three of them attacking Trump about "pussy" but it ended with Trump standing tall like a man opposite the three pussies - Hillary, Martha, and Anderson (we love you, Andy, but you're a pussy and you know it).

Can we get a real red-blooded man as a prosecuting moderator for the next and final debate, who could confront Trump on equal terms, on behalf of the pussies? (And when we say "pussies" we mean the Party™, the Communities™, and the entire Progressive Humanity™).
As it stands, this entire election boils down to "Trump vs. Pussies," starting with the primaries. Thank you, mainstream media, for clearing it up for us.

Yes, Progressives have always been pussies and carried that title as a badge of honor. Why change now? We trust that you will cast your vote in this poll for the korrekt candidate as required by the Party discipline, because that's what pussies do.

Because if Trump wins, we will be all up for grabs.

.

I voted for "pussies everywhere" because I believe that is the Korrect answer.

I got it right, didn't I?

I voted for (soon to be) Chancrellor Clinton, because she made almost $200,000,000 caring about everybody.

Pretty much I'll always vote for pussy.

.
"The debate was totally rigged!" - Donald J. Trump
.
(Looks like Ivan is not missing any meals...)
.
.
Hillary's response:
.

[Half-off]

Sadly, I must say Trump, because Hillary failed her #1 objective, which was to establish a no-fly zone on her face.

What do the eyes say?

1) Uh oh.
2) You're DEAD!!!
3) Other (you name it)

.
Who won the debate... ask Ivanac!
.

Dedhedvedev wrote:[highlight=#ffff00]What do the eyes say?
[/highlight]
1) Uh oh.
2) You're DEAD!!!
3) Other (you name it)

They say, "Please pass the bibs."

Comrades,
Prog off
Hillary's response shown above is one of the funniest things I have seen.
Prog on
What a great display of non verbal communications by MTE!

.

[OFF]

I only watched snippets of it. Only listened to less than 30 seconds of Hillary since her voice is the most repulsive thing in politics.

It is no question that Hillary must have had the questions in advance. And/or had an earpiece or some other system. She sounded too polished and too scripted. And alike all liberals, she projected too much. If she denounced it, she did it. She was totally unbelievable to all but the most ignorant of voters. It was also obvious that she was just an actor reciting a script.

Trump's answers, however, were simpler. You could tell that he was thinking and staying calm, and also making calm statements. In short, he was actually believable and sounded honest.

In some of the discussion for the last debates I read that in proper, structured debates and not just question-and-answers sessions (which are what the presidential "debates" really are), there are two different votes: a judges' vote and an audience vote. I read of this one gentleman who had incorruptible facts but zero emotion to put some punch behind them. He gained 100% of the judges' vote. However, the audience voted in favor of his opponent, who had facts that weren't near as good as his but who infused them with emotion to create an overall better package.

Hillary might have 30 years of speaking experience, and she may have won in the eyes of the media, but will her highbrow language and slinky, snake-like delivery win over the average man sitting at home trying to scrape out his portion of our country?

Hillary has spent 30 years in her own little ivory tower, but now she is coming out of it. And what has this gotten her? Fainting, bodily collapse at ground zero, and revelation of a host of other problems that would make her unfit to be president.

She has sat in the tower for so long and rose up in it that she thinks that the next step is just as easy as the last. Well, all of her advances have been done in an era where truth could be suppressed and facts hidden and denounced. Now, with the internet and all it's power, the facts have come out, and she cannot suppress them as she has in her previous advances of power.

She has sat in the tower for so long that she has become politically fat, cannot move, and is no longer nimble.

Everybody knows that politics is filled with criminals everywhere, but she might be the biggest one of them all. And now, instead of just going into the bank and taking the jewels as she has in past elections, she has to contend with armed guards, motion sensors, Hollywood lasers, and unstoppable guardians of truth.

To her, the biggest liar in the history of the universe, unstoppable guardians of truth are her mortal enemy. And her only battle plan is to lie even more about them. These guardians are Americans just like you and me (and one particularly handsome Australian man), but she is in such a panic that she has to paint them as Russian.

This statement shows how out of touch and dated she is. Most people in our country do NOT want war with Russia, and don't see Russia as the boogeyman they were perceived as in the 50's through the 80's. In fact, a lot of people want to see new relations with Russia, and for us to ally against the terrors of the Middle East. They saw their bombings in the Middle East not as "threatening" to the US Military, but actually beneficial to all.

Yet she wants to go to war against Russia, even though the Iron Curtain has opened and the spirit of "Russiaphobia" is dying fast. Even Ronald Reagan, who was arguably the most anti-Communist president we ever had, didn't want to go to war. He took the high, respectable, and peaceful road, and had talks with Mikhail Gorbachev to slowly phase out the USSR and helped Gorbachev to institute policies that would slowly ease the USSR into Capitalism and an overall freer society. Furthermore, he reported back to us, the American people, as to what he was doing with Gorbachev and what it would mean for both us and the Russian people.

All of this was done without a single nuke fired. Yet her, in her elderly dementia, would launch every single nuke in the arsenal at them, just because she thinks they hacked her and exposed the truth about her. She's even gotten the government to formally declare Russia as the hacker. Just shows you how corrupt the government is is.

She might have the judges' and the MSM's vote, but the polls (except for the CNN, or Clinton News Network poll) definitely say that she does not have the audiences' vote. And in elections, the audience is what counts.

So, as to the question, I think it just depends on what you're measuring. You can measure the speed of objects, but a car and a ping-pong ball going at 100 miles an hour will have two totally different effects. But if you measured force on impact, you'd get the most accurate picture. Hillary won with the media, the elites, and their lackeys. Trump won with the people.

Comrade Putout wrote:.
Who won the debate... ask Ivanac!
.

That's obviously an imposter! The REAL Ivanac hold envelopes up to his head and says stuff like:

"A three-faced political whore"

*opens envelope*

"Hillary Clinton wearing a Halloween mask"

I guess from now on the expression "trumped-up charges" will never be the same.

As for Russia, as much as I detest Putin's regime, Hillary went way over the top, mentioning Russia as the biggest and scariest bogeyman out there over a dozen times during the debates. That was pure and simple fearmongering.

Her people are trying to position Trump as a fearmonger, but Hillary is the biggest fearmonger of them all. Starting with the fear of Russia and on to the fear of Trump, the wealthiest 1%, the climate change, the systemic racism, the free markets, the lack of government control in education, healthcare or the economy.

To answer the questions if Hillary was convincing and if she won any new votes. Yes and yes.

1. She convinced this fly of what she's made of.

2. That's a new Democrat voter right there.

Just a coincidence?

Back in Mother Russia, pussies grab YOU!!!

.
.

Red Square wrote:As for Russia, as much as I detest Putin's regime, Hillary went way over the top, mentioning Russia as the biggest and scariest bogeyman out there over a dozen times during the debates. That was pure and simple fearmongering.

Made me think of two sides, each calling the other the #1 bogeyman, to deflect attention from the real bogeymen, themselves and their plans to imprison all mankind with a totalitarian One World Government.

What's so great about the number 1? Do we all want just one book to read, one song to sing, one movie to watch, one gruel to eat, one deodorant to use (h/t Bernie Sanders)? I think the predominant answer would be, NO! Given that, what's the rush toward a single world government -- to get it done before we wake up?

The fly has become a trans-living voter? wow...

So much fly fiction, so little time ...

You flies can now vote, by landing on your candidate, so land early and land often.

I know who really won the debate!

Mikhail Lysenkomann wrote:I voted for "pussies everywhere" because I believe that is the Korrect answer.

I got it right, didn't I?

Me too. We are both right or doomed.

Dedhedvedev wrote:I voted for (soon to be) Chancrellor Clinton, because she made almost $200,000,000 caring about everybody.

Good reason but better reason is her enemies(and Friends) end up dead when they oppose her.

How does she know? In the Clinton Family anything goes, so that could be her mom or maybe not. Any good member of the proletariat will ignore their Familial activities (Wisest choice since death follows that Lady everywhere) Good Bolsheviks know to research for the purposes of blackmail persuasion.

Guardian of Pravda wrote:

Mikhail Lysenkomann wrote:I voted for "pussies everywhere" because I believe that is the Korrect answer.

I got it right, didn't I?

Me too. We are both right or doomed.

Wrong! We are left or we are wrong. We are never right!

Hans Olo wrote:

Guardian of Pravda wrote:

Mikhail Lysenkomann wrote:I voted for "pussies everywhere" because I believe that is the Korrect answer.

I got it right, didn't I?

Me too. We are both right or doomed.

Wrong! We are left or we are wrong. We are never right!

Good point