Given the continuing "lawfare" Dems have waged against Repubs, the only problem I have with Trump saying that is that he was being honest in public. Hillary should be in jail.

Precisely because Trump is so odious, he's less dangerous than Clinton. The establishment in both parties despise him, so Congress isn't going to give him what he wants no matter who controls it. Clinton will be kept in check so long as Congress is Republican, or at least divided, but if the Democrats get control while she's in office, it's Dubya all over again. Or LBJ.

As for Aleppo, until Johnson's gotcha moment I hadn't heard of it in over 50 years. (When I was a kid we had pet hamsters, and I learned that the first wild ones were taken into captivity in Aleppo.)

So if other people have been jailed for doing less than what Clinton did, how is it authoritarian to have an independent party review how she skipped out on jail time?

Perhaps the people of Haiti would like to see Hillary in Jail.

"However, the brag from Trump about how he'd jail his opponent if he wins was particularly sickening and is talk that belongs in an authoritarian state."

Apparently, you've missed how a) this has been done in the past, BY Democrats as well, b) that a President can't have this done by himself, and c) nobody can make this happen outside due process.

You may release your pearls!

FB is circulating the Hitchhiker's Guide To The Galaxy excerpt about electing the right lizard. It should not be a surprise that the man said out loud what a hundred million other Americans have.

What a shock that a candidate would say what the people want him to say!

Mistakenly, I turned the TV to the TMC channel. Only when the credits ran did I realize why the "debate" had been in black and white - l'd been watching " Frankenstein Meets The Wolfman." Actually, Bela Lugosi, made up as "The Monster," did a fair Hillary impression.

Much as I hate to say it, Hillary did a much better job last night. She had more energy, was better at staying on point (although neither one of them were particularly good at it) and had much better hair.

Trump seemed rather tired and appeared much older than Hillary, although they're only a year apart in age. I kept wondering if Trump was ill or perhaps had allergies with all the sniffling.

And to what purpose did he have Juanita Broaddrick, Paula Jones and whomever else was there? I kept wondering if they were going to do something or say something out of order. But just having them there hardly seemed to faze Hillary. I wonder how much Trump paid them. Because we already know Paula Jones would not be there unless she got paid.

I wouldn't believe a word out of Juanita Broaddrick's mouth. She was a visible supporter of Bill Clinton after this supposed rape occurred, she had said in a deposition that there had been no sexual contact between them. Then, 21 years after the "fact," we're supposed to believe that she had been raped and her upper lip had nearly been bitten off.

So I don't believe her. You don't get to come forward 21 years later and accuse someone of a crime and expect to be believed. Especially when you had denied it in a deposition and was actively supporting the person you're accusing.

As for Paula Jones, she has done nothing but seek to capitalize ever since she was sold out by Ann Coulter. She did starkers for Penthouse (which is a pretty strange thing for someone who was supposedly traumatized by a sexual assault to do). She also appeared on Celebrity Boxing (where she was demolished by Tonya Harding), and complains that no one (and, very strangely, names Ann Coulter, despite the fact that Coulter sold her out and called her "trailer trash") will help her write a book about her supposedly traumatic experience.

Paula Jones seems to have very little clue as to who her friends are.

One thing I will say for Trump, he was the better dressed. I hated Hillary's outfit, with the gray blouse and matching gray jacket collar. She looked rather penguinesque. Too err is human; to waddle, penguine.

A vote for a third party is a vote for Clinton. I hope you can sleep after putting her in office. Trump said he would appoint a special prosecutor. He did not say he would issue a decree that would place her in jail. But her guilt is immense. She took forty million dollars from Russians and promptly saw to it they were awarded 20% of North American Uranium mining. She has done pay for play over and over. She is worth hundreds of millions of dollars; what has she been selling? Cronyism.

No, a vote for a third party is a vote for a third party. And I'm a little sick of sanctimonious idiots who try to guilt and bully people out of voting their conscience.

As long as people insist that there's no choice but one of the two parties, that's all we're going to get. Ever. If you vote for one of the two parties, then you have no room to complain when that's what you get.

I voted for Ralph Nader, and I'm glad I did, despite the fact that I live in Florida, which is the state that decided the election between Bush and Gore.

Don't forget: Shrillary and Oba Mao did put an innocent Copt in jail, you know, to say the embassy attack was due to his video

Shrillary reminds me of W: the same smirk, the same smugness, the utter comtempt, the empty eyes and a lack of visible intelligence; just the opposite of Bill.

Trump did not say he'd arbitrarily lock up Hillary. He said he'd appoint a special prosecutor to investigate her shenanigans and extrapolated from that that she'd be found guilty and imprisoned.

Kinda like when the LAPD chief told "Football" that he was going to jail for attacking Reginald Denny - even before the trial. Gates believed the evidence would show "Football" to be guilty and the natural result would be jail.

And, as Stinky points out, the only candidate on that stage or in this race who has advocated the arbitrary locking up of untried civilians is Hillary.

One thing I will say for Trump, he was the better dressed. I hated Hillary's outfit, with the gray blouse and matching gray jacket collar. She looked rather penguinesque. Too err is human; to waddle, penguins. ~ Patrick at October 10, 2016 4:00 AM

Really.

I thought her outfit in this debate was much better and way more businesslike than the obese grandma shift she wore win the last debate.

Trump's tie was too long. He's conscious of his weight gain and is wearing his tie too long so it doesn't pull up short and expose that he's gotten a little flabby around the middle. And his love of '80s power ties is a dated look.

Love it when people get more upset over what Trump says than what Hillary has done.

Send in the clowns.

No, a vote for a third party is a vote for a third party. And I'm a little sick of sanctimonious idiots who try to guilt and bully people out of voting their conscience. ~ Patrick at October 10, 2016 4:42 AM

Exactly.

If the two major parties cannot bring forth candidates that appeal to the majority of the people, then they have no cause to complain if people vote for a third party.

And to what purpose did he have Juanita Broaddrick, Paula Jones and whomever else was there? I kept wondering if they were going to do something or say something out of order. But just having them there hardly seemed to faze Hillary. I wonder how much Trump paid them. Because we already know Paula Jones would not be there unless she got paid. ~ Patrick at October 10, 2016 3:54 AM

They were there to serve as a reminder to Hillary that if she pushed too hard on the "grab them by the p***y" thing, he'd attack her on he enabling of Bill's sexual misdeeds.

And it worked. She stayed relatively tame on the whole inappropriate comments attack this time around.

So I don't believe her. You don't get to come forward 21 years later and accuse someone of a crime and expect to be believed. ~ Patrick at October 10, 2016 3:54 AM

Why not? Anita Hill did. And the Left believed her.

In fact, she became an icon of feminism and is even included in the National African-American Museum, whereas Clarence Thomas, an African-American who actually sits on the Supreme Court, is curiously absent.

They were there to serve as a reminder to Hillary that if she pushed too hard on the "grab them by the p***y" thing, he'd attack her on he enabling of Bill's sexual misdeeds.

I disagree; if he thought Hillary would dwell on that, he truly doesn't understand anything. As Paul Ryan said, it's the elephant in the room; there's nothing to be gained by pointing it out.

Rather, I think, they were there to rattle Hillary, which is why they were unveiled before the event with only an hour to spare, so she wouldn't have time to get used to the idea. As Patrick pointed out, they didn't faze Hillary a bit.

What gobsmacked me was Melania Trump's choice of outfit, which was beautiful but topped with an oversized "pussy bow," which is certainly a term that a model would know. And it was pink. Why choose that?

Deadline day, so I'm jamming on the column, but something I tweeted:

https://twitter.com/amyalkon/status/785345273161588736?cn=cmV0d2VldA%3D%3D&refsrc=email

@amyalkon
For President, I'd prefer Gary Johnson, Jeff Flake, any of my neighbors besides the short violent guy, or a goat cheese salad.

Remember Mitt Romney? I'd crawl through a field of snakes and land mines to vote for the guy.

"[Anita Hill] became an icon of feminism and is even included in the National African-American Museum, whereas Clarence Thomas, an African-American who actually sits on the Supreme Court, is curiously absent."

Seriously? This is "truth" today?

You know, I have reached the conclusion that a full on aggressive response/attack is now mandatory.

IT'S TIME FOR A WASP TO BE PRESIDENT!

Did people truly believe Anita Hill? Or was she just a convenient excuse to bash the SCOTUS nominee?

I have no reason to consider her credible. Moreover, the statute of limitations exists for a reason. As far as I'm concerned, unless you were in a coma for the entire duration of the statute of limitations, your chance to come forward is well and truly blown.

If it did happen, and no one believes you, look into a mirror and discover whose fault that is.

And the National African-American Museum (never having heard of it until recently, for this very reason) has lost its veneer of respectability right out of the gate, for this reason. Regardless of political affiliation, Clarence Thomas is a sitting justice and no commemoration of prominent black Americans is complete without him. He's only the second African American to be appointed to serve on SCOTUS.

Those saying "Trump didn't kill anyone!" aren't considering that he -- so far -- has lacked power to do that.

Those saying "Trump didn't kill anyone!" aren't considering that he -- so far -- has lacked power to do that. ~ Amy Alkon at October 10, 2016 9:24 AM

Really? Since when has a billionaire lacked the power to kill someone?

Ted Kennedy got away with it. Ray Lewis may have gotten away with it. And they were only millionaires at the time.

A building collapse, a fire in one of the plants making his clothing, a plane crash due to lousy maintenance, etc. Any number of these things could have led to an accusation of Trump getting someone killed. Yet, somehow, his ventures have been so far, non-fatal.

Did people truly believe Anita Hill? Or was she just a convenient excuse to bash the SCOTUS nominee? ~ Patrick at October 10, 2016 8:48 AM

In the end, whether they believed her doesn't matter. They championed her. If they did so falsely, they poisoned the system for nothing.

...your chance to come forward is well and truly blown. ~ ~ Patrick at October 10, 2016 8:48 AM

As was Bill Clinton.

Seriously? This is "truth" today? ~ Bob in Texas at October 10, 2016 8:33 AM

Is it not true? I searched extensively online for a rebuttal to the claim, but couldn't find one.

They last time i was in DC, they museum was still under construction, so I cannot verify the claim personally.

http://lasvegas.cbslocal.com/2016/08/10/the-list-of-clinton-associates-whove-died-mysteriously-check-it-out/

Anyone seriously come close to matching this?

Are they just unlucky?

Rather, I think, they were there to rattle Hillary, which is why they were unveiled before the event with only an hour to spare, so she wouldn't have time to get used to the idea. As Patrick pointed out, they didn't faze Hillary a bit. ~ Kevin at October 10, 2016 8:21 AM

They did faze her. He plan was to use the taped conversation to further her argument that Trump is temperamentally unsuited for the presidency. That's why the tape was leaked so close to the debate. She didn't follow her planned line of attack in the debate. She sheared off and complained that he wasn't talking about "issues" like she wanted to. She recovered nicely and pursued a secondary line of attack, but not her intended one.

According to the American Spectator:

It was a night of surprises, starting with Trump’s pre-debate press conference featuring women abused by Bill Clinton (along with a lesser known woman, Kathy Shelton, whose rapist Hillary defended). ... That press conference — and the placement of the women in the audience — may have rattled Hillary and muted her attacks on what she calls his “misogyny.” Trump’s taped remarks ended up playing a minor role in the debate.

They did faze her. He plan was to use the taped conversation to further her argument that Trump is temperamentally unsuited for the presidency. ... She didn't follow her planned line of attack in the debate.

How do you know this? (Not saying you don't; I'm just wondering if there's a briefing book or something that leaked.)

I find it hard to imagine that HRC would want this to be any central part of a debate, particularly a town-hall debate — not for any noble reason, but because when your opponent is that ensnared, all you have to do is sit back.

Just putting the pieces together after watching how the debate opened and how she seemed to shift strategies in mid-debate.

Just putting the pieces together after watching how the debate opened and how she seemed to shift strategies in mid-debate.

OK, then, I'll just have to disagree. The elephant already was in the room; she didn't need to unleash it.

I’M OLD ENOUGH TO REMEMBER WHEN DEMOCRATS THREATENED TO TRY W AS A WAR CRIMINAL AND “FROG MARCH” KARL ROVE TO PRISON

https://pjmedia.com/instapundit/246017/

I posted this on facebook in response to the trending John Oliver diatribe about how republican lawmakers are to blame for the rise of Trump
----------------------------------------------

Sorry no. Liberals green lit Trump when they called Bush a war mongering racist even though Obama has deported more Mexicans and presided over more wars and military actions.

It was liberals who called Romney Hilter and a cold calculating racist who ordered his daughter to adopt a black kid so it could be used as a campaign prop.

You know what the really sad thing is? Right up until Trump ran as a republican the left loved him. He has yet to say or do anything that politicians on the left do and say all the time.

I'm going to let you in on a secret, well not a secret - but given how leftists deny reality it probably is to them.

Trump has virtually no supporters. Oh he has lots of people who will vote for him. Not because he is a good leader, or a wise man, or someone who will make a great president, no.

You see a larger number of us are onto the political game, we are sick and tired of how every year the government becomes more AUTHORITARIAN despite which sides of the equally bought and paid for aisle is "in charge"

Trump is a monkey wrench to us, he is sand in the eyes. He is a gremlin we plan to set lose in the machinery to fuck things up. We know he is an abrasive piece of shit, its what we are looking forward to

Quite frankly I would like to thank liberals for being such monumental assholes over the last few decades so as to drive more and more republicans to the point that they really stopped giving a shit about being nice.

This is a hell of your own creation liberals, I'd suggest you own up to it and apologize if you ever have plans of having a meaningful rational conversation with the people you've spent decades demonizing

OK, then, I'll just have to disagree. The elephant already was in the room; she didn't need to unleash it. ~ Kevin at October 10, 2016 12:45 PM

She wasn't unleashing it, she was going to hammer him with it. And he made sure she couldn't. He outplayed her on that one.

"Going back to Gary Johnson, besides being, uh, libertarianesque, he has one essential thing going for him: He isn't odious."

So, is Weedman libertarianesque when he says he'd force a jewish baker to make a nazi cake? We all know the public outrage from that would prevent it from really happening? Was he beyond the pale for calling Trump a pussy months ago?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FitCoZ0kGpE

Johnson is not a libertarian of any sort. His VP pick is establishment GOP-lite from MA who hates guns. Johnson cares only about weed now since gay marriage was upheld. He couldn't even keep a budget for his 2012 campaign. He said in 2012 he wouldn't prosecute the bankers who broke laws during the 08 crash. He's a fraud who clearly spends too much time rockin the ganja.

Bah, sorry for the rant but this is why I don't hang out on various libertarian type sites anymore. At least vote Jill Stein if you hate the duopoly candidates or don't vote at all. Write in Homer Simpson. But Weedman? Bob Barr is/was more of a libertarian (I think he's gop again). The only decent libertarian candidate in 20 years was Badnarik.

IRA,

I only opened the comments to post that, and you beat me to it. But since I'm here...
Amy, really. I've always respected you, even when I disagree. But your "Trump Derangement Syndrome" is most unbecoming. One does not need to support Trump, like Trump, or even know who he is to recognize and acknowledge that Hillary Clinton and Griselda Blanco only differ with respect to the product they market. Now, since I know who Trump is - Pussy? Really? I got news for all the pearl clutchers out there, and you may want to sit down for this - if you are rich and famous, there are legions of beautiful women you can grab by the pussy, and they will let you. Now go back to your dog eared copies of "50 Shades of Grey" while the rest of us hyperventilate about the heinous assault just unleashed on your virtue. You might have "Girls" on as background noise while you are reading.
Aside - I am a Ron Paul supporter from 2008. I took a lot of abuse along the lines of "you are throwing away your vote/helping to elect the other guy/idealistic child/Grow up/He can never win/Libertarianism sounds good but will never work in the real world/ etc. etc. ad nauseum etc. Its a damn shame people had to be faced with Donald Fucking Trump vs. The Hildebeast to see what a bunch of crap that is.

Hillary just loves the First Amendment. Well, as long as you have goodthought:

Hillary Clinton encouraged supporters Monday to follow and stage an intervention for a protester who was removed by security after he interrupted her rally in Detroit.

"You know," Clinton said after the demonstrator was forcibly removed from her campaign event, "I do hope somebody follows that gentleman out and stages an intervention."

The demonstrator, an African-American man, was wearing a shirt featuring a likeness of Bill Clinton with the word "RAPE" printed across the front.

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/clinton-suggests-intervention-for-protester-with-bill-clinton-rape-shirt/article/2604170

"Johnson cares only about weed now since gay marriage was upheld."

Yup. He went on air suggesting marijuana as a cure for Ebola.

And the chairman of the Libertarian party called people dicks, when they asked him how his party tracks its growth:

http://imgur.com/a/B1d1N

I need to find the quote where they asked him how he planned on getting the Libertarian party into the government. His reply boiled down to:

"I don't know but we are working on it"

Lujlp - yep, Monkey Wrench!

That's mostly my reason, come November, that I will be voting for Trump. He is a monkey wrench in the game both parties play.

As for claiming that he WILL put Hillary in jail - I didn't see/hear it that way. It was more like a taunt that she does belong in jail. Something many Americans believe anyway.

As for the President using government power to stifle political opposition - already been done by Obama against the Tea Party. So, it is nothing new.

Oh come the fuck on. She'd be in jail if she were ANYONE else, and/or if Obama wasn't Pres. Quit with explaining, and just say you'really voting vagina.

http://thefederalist.com/2016/10/10/16-times-democrats-tried-to-prosecute-their-opponents/#.V_v7rhOtzkA.facebook

Dammit Isab. I came BACK here to post THAT link.

"Shrillary reminds me of W: the same smirk, the same smugness, the utter comtempt(sic), the empty eyes and a lack of visible intelligence; just the opposite of Bill."

Did you know the Bushes and Clintons are friends? Really. Whatever you might think you know about "W".

"Moreover, the statute of limitations exists for a reason."

Bill Cosby.

No S of L in the court of public opinion, on which the vote counts.

Amy, you lost your health insurance because of Obama/Hillary and a Supreme Court that whored itself out.

You are contributing to Hilary packing the courts with Justices that will destroy what is left of our constitution.

You are believing the media portrayal of him. People that actually know him or have acquaintance with him know that it is all horseshit.

Dave H.,

It does not matter if it is/is not "horseshit".

The Clintons' are criminals and liars that have been allowed to exist because the DNC sold its soul a long time ago.

1/2 of the Nation does not care (many openly state they do not agree w/her but "it's time for a woman". That's horseshit!

Applied to any other demographic (other than Black) it would be laughed at. But ...

You would have to go to the Mob to find a worse candidate on any issue. Her actions prove to be a lie applied to women's issues as well as security issues.

It's all about her (sounds like a woman?).

"If I win, I'm going to instruct my attorney general to get a special prosecutor to look into your situation, because there's never been so many lies, so much deception."

Which is exactly what should have been done in the first place. Amy, I don't think you appreciate how serious the situation is. The security classification system is an essential part of our nation's defense, and there's a tremendous amount of pressure to do it right -- handle information properly, and neither over-classify nor under-classify. We know now that the FBI investigation was a sham from start to finish, including the planting of false stories in the media about how the FBI agents were diligently recovering deleted files from disk drives. We now know that Justice and the FBI intentionally destroyed evidence. We now know that all of the principals were given immunity deals that not only shielded them from prosecution, but it allowed them to get away without having to give any testimony (unheard-of in immunity deals), and it circumscribed the extent to which law enforcement could even examine the evidence.

Trust in the system is, from what I've seen, at an all-time low. Nobody wants to talk about it, but there are a lot of people who are avoiding contact with classified info to the extent that they can, and some of them are out looking for jobs that don't require clearances. And we're starting to see defendants who have been charged with mishandling classified info use the "Hillary defense", which is going to put the courts in a quandry. Defendants can cite James Comey and FBI precedents in relation to the Hillary case, and prosecutors, judges and juries have to make a Faustian bargain: either they let the defendants get away with it, or they impose a double standard. Either one erodes trust in the system. The first one has the effect of nullifying the law. The second has the effect of establishing that there is one law for the rich and powerful, and another for everybody else. Not just in regard to classified information, either.

Unfortunately, the window is now closed on a special prosecutor. Everyone involved except Hillary herself has immunity, and most or all of the evidence has been destroyed. If Hillary were brought to trial now, with the prosecutors' hands tied, a jury would have to acquit her. The cover-up has succeeded. The bad guys won. The only way to get out of this mess in a Constitutional manner will be for Hillary to be impeached and removed from office, and there's not a chance in hell of that happening, even if Republicans had a two-thirds majority of both Houses. I don't know what happens next. I'm getting a feeling that it will be brutal.

One of the reasons I love this site is that it's so different from other sites I'm on, and from people I know (except for one female co-worker, who's a Hillary-hater.)

All (or most of) those people are voting for Hillary, not necessarily because they love her, but because they despise Trump (and think he's unhinged.) On this site, it's the opposite.

Unfortunately for people on this site, they're backing the person who's going to lose.

Unfortunately for people on this site, they're backing the person who's going to lose.

Maybe, maybe not.

I'm failry open about why I'm voting for Trump. But there are a lot of people like me in the political closet. We tend to lean liberal on social issues and with the DNCs "official" platform.

But we are sick of the endless lies and corruption and hypocrisy, and media article praising women threatening to cut their husbands off from sex and ever seeing their kids again if they vote Trump.

There are a bunch of us willing to take a chance and throw a frag grenade into the inner workings of government just to see what shakes loose

I think Trump's new platform should be:

"I'll ask the NSA to provide the emails that were destroyed by her and the FBI in their "investigation". I'll let the Special Prosecutor have total free reign to report back to you, the people, and let the chips fail where they may."

Sounds good to me and should be a hoot to hear at a rally.