Yet that is the world in which we live. As T.S. Eliot once observed "This is the way the world ends, not with a bang but with a whimper."

Doesn't she look like chairman mao? I'm surprised that's not considered "Sexist"!...women must be held up in order to become president.

That's really, really sad Chuck...definitely a rejection of reality.

I think the old saying has changed. You can't fool some of the people some of the time but you sure can fool most of the people most of the time. [sad]

The debate was exactly what I expected. Hillary was polished, Trump was completely seat-of-the-pants winging it, and the moderator was a Hillary stooge. All of the media talking heads (including Fox) are discounting any focus group reaction that didn't declare Hillary the winner, even though only the CNN group, which was heavily weighted with an excess of Democrats, swung in her direction.

More revealing to me were the numbers from the Florida early voting: 880,000 for Trump, 650,000 for Clinton (technically, not really votes, as I think it's the count of Republican and Democrat ballots mailed in). Whether this is an indication of some real surprises ahead, I can't say.

In Branco's previous cartoon, all the more are "behind" the evil hag. Watch your hands, NBC!

http://patriotupdate.com/cartoon-stro...

I used to teach at a local community college. One day I noticed a bunch of books in in the trash outside the school library. They were all books on critical thinking and logical analysis. I salvaged them and then asked the librarian why they were being discarded. She said they were sexist, racist, and homophobic and had no place in the library because they were culturally insensitive. I took them home and added them to my personal library. I have studied them carefully and found no evidence that they could be deemed offensive. That was 15 years ago! Things have gotten much worse since then.

The country is split pretty much down the middle between the two candidates this time. It will be a small number of actual voters who determine the election. Pretty scary scenario actually.

Hahahah...with the moderator "behind" her like that, I am surprised she didn't squeal like a pig...
(the Arkansas is strong in this one)...[banjo music in the background]

If that was the case then the undecided's will definitely not vote...ever.

Correct...it was just a "tit for tat"...one was deflated and the other was small to begin with...(try not to laugh.)

I'm always disappointed by debates. The candidates never speak about the CONSTITUTION, LIBERTY for all, and government FRAUD and THEFT. (Trump may come close to this last point, HOPEFULLY, next debate). It's all about selling themselves to people who don't pay attention to what's going on. They know people who do pay attention are already sold on their candidate. They never say what I want them to say, never respond the way they should. What I do love, however, is the taking apart and analysis after. The debates are so fleeting in time, but the analysis goes on FOREVER! LOL.

I see your point Freedom, but I personally do not think that there was a purposed dumbing down of the discussion...I think the discussion represented how dumbed down the creatures involved are.

Perhaps now I better understand why I would squirm and pick up my remote.
I just had to keep peeking back, though.
Believe I was fascinated by what this Branco cartoon looked like~

http://patriotupdate.com/holt-lary-tr...

maybe the undecided voters are the ones who are undecided about whether to vote at all, and the debates are an attempt to get THOSE voters to actually vote

there was the pre-debate shows with advertising, and the post-debate shows still going on with advertising. It was a boon for the networks; not sure if it was a boon for anyone else.

It was designed to appeal to the "undecided" voters I suppose. I am not really sure WHO those people are actually.

When you have mob rule, this is what happens. It wasnt an intellectual debate at all, or even an interview to show which candidate could do a better job at administering the government in accordance with the constitution. It was essentially a worthless endeavor

you must be very young, because the dumbing down of America has been exposed by the objectivists starting with Ayn Rand in the 1970's.
it is inching closer and closer to the complete idiot stage.

I agree that he could have gone into more fruitful areas where Hillary is very weak. She was good at just ignoring anything he brought up (like she does routinely) and flooding the airwaves with charges against him which would take a long time to answer.

Perhaps, however, he was waiting to really blow her out of the water a bit closer to the election when she would have less time to combat them.

Glad that every week my children, my wife and I have serious discussions about important matters. And we read together. And not surprisingly, every single one of them has been in the gifted program here. Yeah, they are smart, but there are other smart kids who just don't do anything at home but sit on the couch playing video games all evening.

We might have been able to get something out of the debates but the Research stands and the language and exchange was in fact geared toward a 6 year old...there was no "inter-lectual" exchange of ideas; never mind "intellectual or anti-lectual" discussion of compartmentalized bull crap.
Just a Big Tit for Tat.

I don't think it's as grim as the article suggests. The article accepts the debate at face value as a debate on the issues. I think the candidates actually focused on a few small segment of voters.

In very very loose terms, Republicans are a coalition of people who a) want gov't out of their way and limited by the Constitution and b) rednecks. The Democrats are a coalition of people a) who want a handout in some form or another and b) people who don't want to vote for rednecks. The object of the debate is to convince undecided people, many of whom aren't that into the details, that the Republican is an extreme redneck or the Democrats is a supporter of extreme handouts.

An example of this is Clinton delivered a prepared line about Trump being sexist, and Trump had no pre-prepared comeback. So score one for Clinton for making Trump look redneck. Next time Trump will probably have had his experts prepare a comeback that makes him look non-redneck and Clinton look like she favors extreme handouts.

If you watch it at face value, though, you think "this is our society's idea of discussion public policy!? We've become idiots." That's not right though. It's our idea of using existing urban-vs-rural and egghead-vs-philistine differences to sway people who aren't all that into policy.

Yea...it was like that horror movie when your screaming at the character...RUN STUPID RUN!

When I was watching Trump I thought, "Why couldn't he have had at least the knowledge I gained in my first critical thinking class in college?" This debate was just BEGGING for him to stomp her positions and character into the ground and he just ranted over and over about China, etc. I really felt physical anguish over that. This article explains it, I guess...