The debates will be righes with moderator questions favoring HRC

Obvious

Nice deflection. She didn't even sign onto his concurrence, she signed onto the dissent and my point stands.

Yes, he is trying to weasel out of debating her. He's been trying to for a while. He can't come right and say "I refuse to debate" on August 1st when there's still 50+ days until the first debate so he has to pretend the NFL sent him a letter complaining about the dates, just like he pretended that he saw thousands of American Muslims celebrating 9/11, and he has to lie that Clinton somehow "rigged" the process even though the CPD always sets these terms in consultation with both campaigns and various networks and venues. That's what this is going to be, lies on top of lies while he stalls daily in an effort to get out of doing what every other nominee has done.

It's no different than the tax returns which he also happens to have a brand new excuse for, even though it contradicts his previous five excuses for being the only nominee in 50 years not to release them.



But it isn't deflection: they're performing their role exactly as he outlined. They don't have to perform it in accordance with your preference.

If whatever that is is your answer to how one might try to explain away the fact that the hurr durrs have been consistently wrong in all their conspiratorial claims involving people coming for their guns then congratulations: well done on staying dumb.

Of course you're deflecting. The criticism to which you were responding is clearly "a vote for Hiliary is a vote for putting gun grabbers onto the Supreme Court," to which you replied with commentary about Scalia, someone the likes of whom Hiliary would never in a million years appoint to the court. I showed you a clear example of how gun grabbers vote (refusing to incorporate, which would allow local and state bans to remain in effect), and the best you've got is some manufactured/prefab argument about whatever you think the issue is about, rather than what is actually being discussed.

Anyone else remember that time last week when this model showed Trump winning and we kept having to hear about it? Figured I may as well share:

82% lmao that is a slaughter

lol, it's an incredibly short-sighted model that's really only good to see the current state of the polls and which doesn't have a lot of impact on what the race is going to look like in 99 days when it'll actually matter, but I figure the best way to stop the "Let's revel every time there's a good poll" garbage from Trumpies is to let y'all see what it looks like when the other side does it and hope that's enough to push some Trumpies into thinking it through.

I don't ever post poll numbers shit like this doesn't even matter until we're about a month or so out. If the lead is double digits for either one of them around that time frame game over

Reuters polls aren't rigged