Just show me one plan Paul. Just one plan that Trump can explain. He's no plan just rhetoric. For instance, do you think he's going to be able to bring manufacturing back the US? It's a democratic society companies can manufacture where ever they want. Hells bells, that's Republican dogma 101 for christ's sake. Trump offers no specifics. Saying he's going to take care of ISIS right away and real fast is not a plan it's bullshit. I thought you were smarter than this.

And exactly what is the problem Hillary has been part of for the past 26 years. What problem exactly?

If you don't think putting stop and frisk in place nationwide would not start riots especially in black and Hispanic heavy areas, you are fooling yourself. There is such tension between the police and black communities in some parts of this country that stop and frisk would simply ignite the already volatile situation that exists. It's a powder-keg waiting for a spark.

If I were walking down the street minding my own business and just out for a stroll and the police stopped and frisked me for no reason other than they felt like it, I would be pissed. If a crime had recently been committed in the area and I fit the description of the person who committed the crime, I can understand that and would have no problem with it, but to just stop me because they want to and have no other reason would piss me off.

Mark my word, black communities will not sit idly by and do nothing if stop and frisk is implemented nationwide.

We need change. Every four years. No matter what. Because people are always upset with our government and "how things are".

It's quickly becoming a contest between those that want radical change and those that are terrified of the prospect of such. IMO

I have said for years that a lot of people say they want change, but, in the end, they really don't. When it comes time to vote they look around and take stock of their life. If they have a decent job and their future looks positive. They have a decent place to live and feel pretty secure, they vote for things to stay the same because change can end up being bad for them.

When it comes down to voting day how many people who are currently undecided will be willing to roll the dice and put their future in Trump's hands? That is the question and we likely won't find out until election day.

I didn't see the debate, but have seen some clips. I think Trump hurt himself. His staying he would use stop and frisk to help better black communities likely undid the effort he had been putting forth to reach out to those communities. His going back after Rosie O'Donell will likely turn off some independent female voters. Right now he needs every one of them he can get.

In any typical presidential race I would be very hard pressed to find any fault in the logic about any thing you just said. But, in a typical race we wouldn't be staring at a neck and neck contest involving Donald Trump.

I said a few weeks ago in a different thread that it is testament to how terrible of a candidate Hillary is that this thing is even close. In the reverse, however, we can also see how shitty Trump is that Hillary, who was under investigation by the FBI and who has been behind a ton of shady shit is still nursing a small lead.

It really is the choice between a turd sandwich and a giant douche.

This. A moderator cannot get into a debate and argue with a participant, that is absolutely ridiculous and disgusting. And this is coming from someone with no dog in this fight. The moderator even argued 'well that's not what the record shows' when the man who he is speaking of is standing right in front of him disputing the 'record'. Moderator cannot do that.

I didn't see the debate so I can't speak to this particular situation, but I disagree that the moderator shouldn't engage with them. If the moderator knows they are lying, he/she should point that out. If Trump claims he never blamed global warming on the Chinese, the moderator should be able to pull out his tweet that shows he in fact did just that.

It's one thing to show bias and only go after one person or to ask questions that clearly favor one person over the other, but the people want answers and reality, they don't want to just be lied to for 90 minutes.

I think you missed Debate 101.

"The role of the moderator is the ask questions and allow the nominees to respond and debate. He or she is also there to control the flow and make sure the candidates stay within time limits and also make sure the debate flows properly. The moderator is not there to do the debating. They are not there to ask gotcha questions. They are supposed to be impartial in their questions. By these standards, Holt failed miserably. He fell into the Democrat's trap where they called on him to be a fact checker, which has never been the role of the moderator. He should not have been arguing and debating Trump himself. If Hillary did not have a comeback for his answer about the Iraq war, then he should have moved on. I really wanted him to succeed as I think Holt is a good man, but he simply did a poor job. Too bad he didn't do his own debate prep and watch a few Jim Lehr moderated debates."

So, if he asks a question and the person tells and out and out lie he is just supposed to sit there and let him do so? I guess I disagree. Sure, in a perfect world, the moderator should stay out of it, but here we are dealing with two people who are almost incapable of telling the truth or staying on point and actually answering the questions. I guess I don't see a problem with him doing a little prodding.