The requests for fact checking where triggered by the interview earlier this month by NBC anchor Matt Lauer who didn't fact check and got caned for it.

---

My Prediction in the farce debate between the two most hated candidates in US history:

Clinton will be declared winner because the questions will be geared to her answers.

Trump is at a disadvantage of being 1 against 2. Holt and Clinton are on the same team and Lester has NO intention of asking relevent questions. The questions will be geared toward creating theater.
Trump will have trouble containing his anger when Clinton baits him with half truths and rudeness.

Despite stronger polls than Ross Perot, and now with a petition signed by over 1,000,000 voters, the R and D controlled Debate Commission will not allow Gary Johnson to show the viewers what a rational, even tempered and highly qualified candidate should look like. They really don't want their two to look so much worse than they already do.

The bought-and-paid-for national press & media will announce that H. Clinton wins the debate.

Really?
You did catch the "Commander in Chief Forum", did you not?

---

Capitalize on this good fortune, one word can bring you round ... changes.

Diminishing marginal utility in what?

Guy since you don't seem to know diminishing utility in income and wealth. An example in income is a person who make $100 per day would see a change in their spending if they had $20 more a day whereas a person with a $2000 a day income would notice nothing. The poor person's spending would increase his consumption which would mean more work would be performed, the rich guy would not increase his spending which is the fallacy of trickle down. There is a reason it is called voodoo economics as it makes as much sense.

---

I find it ludicrous but predictable that the candidate who has been caught in more lies than Ali Babba wants her opponent 'fact checked'......'who will watch the watchers?'

No matter who wins, on November 9th it's going to be fun watching all the typing heads metaphorically 'explode' in these threads....":D>

---

"Sour Grapes make a bitter Whine." <(0)>

I think there is little difference between R & D. They both want to tell me how to live.
I don't consider Lester Holt anything but a supporter of the BIG GOVERNMENT policies espoused by BOTH 'major' parties.
I expect him to craft questions that are "softball" to Clinton and designed to get Trump to respond emotionally.
That is what I expect.
I also expect there to be NO MENTION of another point of view. Since the Debate Commission is completely controlled by D and R, the Authoritarian form of government is all I expect they will be discussing.
Clinton is little trusted by the voter. Clinton is, however trusted by the members of the Debate Commission to represent their interest in the continuation of BIG GOVERNMENT. They are not sure what Trump will do for them.
Expect this debate designed to have people overlook their heartfelt mistrust of Clinton. If you think for a minute that Lester Holt is going to be the independent voice of reason, then I think you are mistaken.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E1jf2hOkec4

---

"Sour Grapes make a bitter Whine." <(0)>

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E1jf2hOkec4

I get it, it's an exploding head video.
That's more an Apocalyptic metaphor.
i like to watch, to watch the Murphy, in Z Nation.

I expect no matter if Lester Holt goads Clinton and softballs Trump, Trump supporters will say he was biased against them.
I expect no matter if Lester Holt goads Trump and softballs Clinton, Clinton supporters will say he was biased against them.

I doubt it is possible to split this hair down the middle. But I'm sure Lester Holt will be much closer to the center than partisans on both sides will ever admit.

I'm sure that there will be many pants on fire awarded to the candidates after the debate. I'd be shocked if that count was even however.

I'm also sure that nothing substantive that draws out how either would govern will escape either of their lips. Only raw emotion catch words of utter falsity will be spoken.

Now, that you have had the post debate summary ... change the channel and watch the football game!

---

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E1jf2hOkec4

That is a beautiful thing. I really got teared up with the exciting prospects of that being real.

http://www.cbc.ca/beta/comedy/funnystuff/clinton-prepares-for-trump-with-mock-debates-against-poop-flinging-ape-1.3779418

Hillary can't Lose!

Canadian debate couches come up with the ultimate defense for the Donald!

---

Most democrats are felons. I demonstrated this with a sourced study a few months back.

No you did not. Your source did not support your view. You do know what a lie is don't you?

---

I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that ...

And the countdown starts . 15 mins till the whole world tunes in to the debate of the century time to turn over to News 24 on the ABC live coverage of the debate starts at 11am for all the ozzies out there .

---

Who will give me odds on this whole thing getting hacked to-night?

---

Yes, there is anecdotal evidence that a dollar is worth more to a poor person than to a rich person.

No that has been documented for many decades.

But that's a tired argument. This makes the assumption that a poor person *can't* increase his income.

That is a straw man argument.

Reagan, despite a democrat controlled congress, demonstrated empirically that supply-side economics improved the lives of millions.

The income gap which has occurred since then contradicts your assertion.
Guy you should take a course or two in micro-economics then you might be able to at least lucidly discuss the economic issues which you are so concerned about.

---

Yes, there is anecdotal evidence that a dollar is worth more to a poor person than to a rich person.

No that has been documented for many decades.

But that's a tired argument. This makes the assumption that a poor person *can't* increase his income.

That is a straw man argument.

Reagan, despite a democrat controlled congress, demonstrated empirically that supply-side economics improved the lives of millions.

The income gap which has occurred since then contradicts your assertion.
Guy you should take a course or two in micro-economics then you might be able to at least lucidly discuss the economic issues which you are so concerned about.

Hmmm, I hear other conservatives discuss the velocity of money. But not Guy?

---

Capitalize on this good fortune, one word can bring you round ... changes.

Well, so far I think Hillary wins on the hair.

---

The mind is a weird and mysterious place

I don't care what any one says, Hillary wins the acting award
so far. The Donald looks like an actor in a Japanese horror
movie.

---

I do like the American flag pin on Trump's lapel.

---

The mind is a weird and mysterious place