The Debate Thread

[Disgustipated]

@chrissyteigen: drinking game for tonight is to never stop
Shared via TweetCaster

 

[Disgustipated]

@darrenrovell: Yep, they spelled Hillary's name wrong on tonight's ticket https://twitter.com/darrenrovell/status/780576245163626497/photo/1
Shared via TweetCaster

 

[sr71plt]

What if a president said if you want free money or troops or the solution to your problems you have to go along with (fill in the bank).

That's not an issue of demeanor. You can be firm in negotiations, but if you are petulant, you need to do that only once or twice for shock value. You also need to understand the reality of the issue.

On such issues as NATO and Japan, which are the ones Trump brought up in the debate, he has a very elementary understanding of what the United States gets out of the arrangements. He looks at the bottom financial line (in fact this debate showed just how little he understands other than a bottom line financial figure about much of anything), and he thinks that's the whole story of the give and take, when it isn't even close to all that's involved. It's like all those yokels who look at the UN and decide that, what they see on the surface is all that's there, and so it's not worth it and they don't realize/understand that this is the neutral ground on which much of the real work and discussions between nations and coalitions is going on behind the official trappings of the place.

Trump keeps saying he wants to put the United States on a business footing, but other countries are on government standards, not a business footing. So are most of the social services in the United States. You don't fulfill a place internationally or run a successful government or social program by including the option of defaulting and stiffing those providing your services. He just doesn't understand when he says he's smart to manage not to pay any government-support share in his taxes but still wants to be head of a government that requires this form of income to operate. And his supporters aren't too bright to let him get away with this attitude and still want to be president.

 

[domroger]

How will the people of America react to this ridiculous so-called "debate"?

Both parties will claim victory .
As usual .

 

[Liar]

Alright, just finished breakfast and the morning emails.

Did anyone die on stage?

 

[Darbhinder]

In a true debate each side gets a certain time to speak and people can only interrupt for various points directed at the moderator, like point of clarification or point of order.
That is what I mean by controlling the microphones, so during one candidates time to speak the other could only speak to the moderator.
It was just an idea, but I would really like the "debates" to be true debates on the real issues on hand.

As to Hillary dealing with interruptions, I am sure she is a pro at it, most women are since most women get interrupted all the time.

Most women are because most women get interrupted all the time...lol. What an idiot.

 

[zipman]

This is what Trump doesn't understand. He thinks that simply because his opponent is a congenital liar that everyone knows it and he doesn't have to do anything.

The fact is, everyone DOES know it, but in a political campaign they expect and demand that he use HER RECORD to PROVE IT repeatedly.

This woman is going to end up being the first female president simply because Mr. "Fart-ON-The-Deal" doesn't know how to shoot fish in a barrel.

Actually Trump is the bigger liar (both last night and throughout the entire campaign) and that is really saying something.

From last night alone:
1) the role Clinton played in birtherism
2) Crime rates and stop and frisk
3) Saying Global warming was a plot by China
4) Opposing the Iraq war from the beginning

Clinton clearly did a far better job than he did both showing command of the issues and not making any big mistakes as Trump did several times.

That being said, I have no idea how much it will actually matter in this election.

 

[Jamiegeo]

A 'professional', seasoned politician wearing a shit eating grin debating politics with an Ego driven maniacal Billionaire presidential candidate.

They say there's a fine line between genius and insanity..........
I feel Trump has shown there's a fine line between seasoned politician and maniacal billionaire rookie candidate...
Good for him: You can debate many things but the point he made of her 27years to try and suddenly decide to change things is a good call.
I'm glad I don't have to vote in that.

 

[Disgustipated]

@jerryspringer: Hillary Clinton belongs in the White House. Donald Trump belongs on my show.

 

[Hypoxia]

Currency markets say Tromp lost the debate as soon as he opened his mouth.

 

[ishtat]

Objectively, Clinton was very well prepared and won every point where there was any contention. Trump was woeful, clearly out of his league - But will it make the slightest difference to voting intentions?

If he is that bad next time, expect some high profile Republicans to disown him.

 

[Christobal]

That's not an issue of demeanor. You can be firm in negotiations, but if you are petulant, you need to do that only once or twice for shock value. You also need to understand the reality of the issue.

On such issues as NATO and Japan, which are the ones Trump brought up in the debate, he has a very elementary understanding of what the United States gets out of the arrangements. He looks at the bottom financial line (in fact this debate showed just how little he understands other than a bottom line financial figure about much of anything), and he thinks that's the whole story of the give and take, when it isn't even close to all that's involved. It's like all those yokels who look at the UN and decide that, what they see on the surface is all that's there, and so it's not worth it and they don't realize/understand that this is the neutral ground on which much of the real work and discussions between nations and coalitions is going on behind the official trappings of the place.

Trump keeps saying he wants to put the United States on a business footing, but other countries are on government standards, not a business footing. So are most of the social services in the United States. You don't fulfill a place internationally or run a successful government or social program by including the option of defaulting and stiffing those providing your services. He just doesn't understand when he says he's smart to manage not to pay any government-support share in his taxes but still wants to be head of a government that requires this form of income to operate. And his supporters aren't too bright to let him get away with this attitude and still want to be president.

Well thought out reply. It has me thinking.

 

[Colonel Hogan]

That's not an issue of demeanor. You can be firm in negotiations, but if you are petulant, you need to do that only once or twice for shock value. You also need to understand the reality of the issue.

On such issues as NATO and Japan, which are the ones Trump brought up in the debate, he has a very elementary understanding of what the United States gets out of the arrangements. He looks at the bottom financial line (in fact this debate showed just how little he understands other than a bottom line financial figure about much of anything), and he thinks that's the whole story of the give and take, when it isn't even close to all that's involved. It's like all those yokels who look at the UN and decide that, what they see on the surface is all that's there, and so it's not worth it and they don't realize/understand that this is the neutral ground on which much of the real work and discussions between nations and coalitions is going on behind the official trappings of the place.

Trump keeps saying he wants to put the United States on a business footing, but other countries are on government standards, not a business footing. So are most of the social services in the United States. You don't fulfill a place internationally or run a successful government or social program by including the option of defaulting and stiffing those providing your services. He just doesn't understand when he says he's smart to manage not to pay any government-support share in his taxes but still wants to be head of a government that requires this form of income to operate. And his supporters aren't too bright to let him get away with this attitude and still want to be president.

Outstanding point.

Most people don't understand that foreign aid from superpowers to lesser countries takes two forms. Humanitarian aid is humanitarian. But ALL foreign aid, including humanitarian is strategic. It is designed to increase the international influence and dominance vis-a-vis other global rivals. Whether one calls the receiving countries satellites, proxies or the gilded lily of full-blown ally, it avoids the stigma of naked colonialism.

 

[Wrong Element]

Objectively, Clinton was very well prepared and won every point where there was any contention. Trump was woeful, clearly out of his league - But will it make the slightest difference to voting intentions?

If he is that bad next time, expect some high profile Republicans to disown him.

Debate results don't move hardcore partisans. If you already somehow believed Trump is suited to be president, after all the evidence of his life and this campaign, then one more night where he looks like a dope isn't going to change your mind.

But it could matter on the margins, with undecided voters or with voters who were leaning Clinton but needed to be reassured after the 9/11 incident (and also, with voters who have been thinking third party because they think both of them are equally bad -- a lot of people this time around). And marginal differences are pretty damn important in a race this close. The polls didn't move much after Romney beat up on Obama in the first 2012 debate, but Mitt did gain some.

I have a feeling Trump might back out of the second debate, but come back for the third debate with Fox's Chris Wallace (hired by Roger Ailes) as moderator. I'm not sure his ego can handle another manhandling at the hands of a sickly aged woman.

 

[Colonel Hogan]

Debate results don't move hardcore partisans. If you already somehow believed Trump is suited to be president, after all the evidence of his life and this campaign, then one more night where he looks like a dope isn't going to change your mind.

But it could matter on the margins, with undecided voters or with voters who were leaning Clinton but needed to be reassured after the 9/11 incident (and also, with voters who have been thinking third party because they think both of them are equally bad -- a lot of people this time around). And marginal differences are pretty damn important in a race this close. The polls didn't move much after Romney beat up on Obama in the first 2012 debate, but Mitt did gain some.

I have a feeling Trump might back out of the second debate, but come back for the third debate with Fox's Chris Wallace (hired by Roger Ailes) as moderator. I'm not sure his ego can handle another manhandling at the hands of a sickly aged woman.

Absolutely. And shit caning the second debate might be an excellent strategy. At this point, getting a split decision might be the best he can hope for out of the debates. Win one? Maybe. Win two. Uh, probably not.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

Didn't watch it.

Diehards on both sides think their candidate won (as seen on TV and from reading around on the web).

All Democrats think their candidate was perfect. She pitched a no-hitter. Good for her.

More than a few Republicans say Trump blew it. But it won't move the needle much.

In instances like this however, I have this one takeaway, she has no room for improvement, last night was as good as it gets. He has a lot of room for improvement and to bring up some serious topics that he (or the moderator) did not. Therefore, he has a chance to improve his standing, whereas she may not.

Unlike Mark Cuban, I don't score this as a single four quarter game, I see it more as a hockey match and she may have won the first period, but there are two more to go...

 

[Emerson40]

Debate results don't move hardcore partisans. If you already somehow believed Trump is suited to be president, after all the evidence of his life and this campaign, then one more night where he looks like a dope isn't going to change your mind.

But it could matter on the margins, with undecided voters or with voters who were leaning Clinton but needed to be reassured after the 9/11 incident (and also, with voters who have been thinking third party because they think both of them are equally bad -- a lot of people this time around). And marginal differences are pretty damn important in a race this close. The polls didn't move much after Romney beat up on Obama in the first 2012 debate, but Mitt did gain some.

I have a feeling Trump might back out of the second debate, but come back for the third debate with Fox's Chris Wallace (hired by Roger Ailes) as moderator. I'm not sure his ego can handle another manhandling at the hands of a sickly aged woman.

I don't think you'll see much swing either way after this first of three debates. As you said, the decided voters are already polarized and will each claim their battle wins from last night, and remind us the election war is just not won yet.

Watching some of the post debate coverage, it wasn't surprising to see that almost all the 'undecided' voters interviewed were still undecided. A few of them said that they likely won't be backing someone, but instead voting for the lesser of two evils. Likely, most of these will remain undecided right up until voting day, after they've digested the other debates and remainder of the campaign.

It's seems this election, more than others that have preceded it, will have many casting squandered votes, where instead of voting in support of someone or the party you want to see win, many will vote just to see the other side lose.

 

[Disgustipated]

Didn't watch it.

Diehards on both sides think their candidate won (as seen on TV and from reading around on the web).

All Democrats think their candidate was perfect. She pitched a no-hitter. Good for her.

More than a few Republicans say Trump blew it. But it won't move the needle much.

In instances like this however, I have this one takeaway, she has no room for improvement, last night was as good as it gets. He has a lot of room for improvement and to bring up some serious topics that he (or the moderator) did not. Therefore, he has a chance to improve his standing, whereas she may not.

Unlike Mark Cuban, I don't score this as a single four quarter game, I see it more as a hockey match and she may have won the first period, but there are two more to go...

Thank you for your top-notch analytical breakdown, sensei.

 

[sr71plt]

Interesting posts. I had no trouble whatsoever figuring out who won the debate. But then I actually watched it.

 

[snugglestruggle]

Alright, just finished breakfast and the morning emails.

Did anyone die on stage?

Sadly, not even a dizzy spell. Trump didn't even turn red.

Actually Trump is the bigger liar (both last night and throughout the entire campaign) and that is really saying something.

From last night alone:
1) the role Clinton played in birtherism
2) Crime rates and stop and frisk
3) Saying Global warming was a plot by China
4) Opposing the Iraq war from the beginning

Clinton clearly did a far better job than he did both showing command of the issues and not making any big mistakes as Trump did several times.

That being said, I have no idea how much it will actually matter in this election.

Status quo. Clinton the 30 year expert politician didn't knock out the big mouth billionaire turned amateur politician and Trump didn't make Hillary have a seizure.
It was boring as fuck, thanks Lester

 

[toubab]

My bottom line opinion on last night's debate, for what it's worth, is it's a difficult task for someone to come across as more smug, more conceited, more arrogant, and more condescending than Donald Trump, but Hillary Clinton not only did it, she did it convincingly. May have cost her the election. We shall see.

 

[RobDownSouth]

My bottom line opinion on last night's debate, for what it's worth, is it's a difficult task for someone to come across as more smug, more conceited, more arrogant, and more condescending than Donald Trump, but Hillary Clinton not only did it, she did it convincingly. May have cost her the election. We shall see.

CALLED IT!
From two days ago:

No matter how badly Trump craters, we can be sure that Toubab and/or Botany Boy will seize on some minor Clinton gaffe to declare "both candidates were equally bad!!" EQUALLY BAD, DAMMIT!

 

[sr71plt]

It's sort of fun watching you guys try to rationalize the debate as some sort of wash. Do keep it up. Your side needs to continue to think Trump did well--for the eventual good of the nation.

 

[BotanyBoy]

CALLED IT!
From two days ago:

You were wrong about me though

Again.

 

[sr71plt]

On to the next debate.