The Debate Thread

[Super-Surprise]

Lester Holt for President...he was the most unqualified person on the stage last night.

 

[Adre]

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.

For what it's worth?

 

[Noor]

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.

Trump's financial assessments, like most big businesses these days, is very short term based and government decisions need to be long term.

 

[colddiesel]

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.

Exceptionally well put Pilot. I will only add that successful businessmen have a hopeless record as Presidents/Prime, ministers precisely because their point of view is far too narrow for the office. And anyway, is Trump a successful Businessman?

 

[RobDownSouth]

You were wrong about me though

Again.

True, but in the ultimate scheme of things, you simply don't matter.

 

[Hypoxia]

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.

Foreign aid also hugely benefits USA business. Most money 'given' other states ends up being channeled to USA firms, whether military, agricultural, industrial, service, etc. Military aid buys USA armaments and mercs. Humanitarian aid buys USA food and medicine. Infrastructure aid buys USA engineering. It returns home.

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.

If Tromp skips out, Hillary can gloat that he's 1) a coward, 2) a pledge-breaker, and 3) totally unfit to face any challenge. I can see the headline now: TROMP RUNS, FUCKS HIMSELF. If he flees, wolfpacks will shred him.

 

[BotanyBoy]

True, but in the ultimate scheme of things, you simply don't matter.

Good to be in the same boat with you!

 

[Wrong Element]

If Tromp skips out, Hillary can gloat that he's 1) a coward, 2) a pledge-breaker, and 3) totally unfit to face any challenge. I can see the headline now: TROMP RUNS, FUCKS HIMSELF. If he flees, wolfpacks will shred him.

Keep in mind the second debate is a town hall format. I don't think Hillary is necessarily great at those (though she's married to the best town hall debater of all time), but what reason is there to believe Trump can display any kind of common man's touch?

And the tricky thing about town hall debates is that they're harder to prep for, because civilians don't talk like political reporters. You can count on several questions that a Washington journalist would never think to ask. That puts a premium on having a base of knowledge you can fall back on, which is obviously not Trump's strong suit. And it's much more awkward to attack your opponent in a town hall, because if you're doing that, you're probably ignoring someone's question.

I think all the day-after talk about unfairness, Lester Holt, the allegedly bad microphone etc. is laying the groundwork for possibly skipping the next debate.

 

[sr71plt]

probably ignoring someone's question.

I think all the day-after talk about unfairness, Lester Holt, the allegedly bad microphone etc. is laying the groundwork for possibly skipping the next debate.

I think it would be kicky that Anderson Cooper have a chair for him anyway and asked questions of the chair that Trump wouldn't have answered anyway.

 

[phrodeau]

Trump keeps the "dog ate my homework" option on the table.

 

[Jamiegeo]

Future template for party Presidential candidate selections?

https://youtu.be/NXB6slJSbL4

 

[sr71plt]

Trump keeps the "dog ate my homework" option on the table.

If only they'd given him a working mic.

 

[Wrong Element]

LMAO

Trump is going to do everything he can to get her screeching and/or coughing. And he'll succeed because at her core she's a low class, self-entitled, bitch. Everyone knows, they just don't have the balls to admit it.

And the press will call Trump "mean" for causing her to go off the rails. Obviously the Russians, Chinese, and our other adversaries will be oh so much kinder.

The pundits and the press will do everything they can to spin away her meltdown, but those cough-bites/screech-bites will be on Utube and will be there FOREVER.

You're right, it won't be much of a debate. It'll be more like Jerry Springer and Trump is going to make damn sure that that's the way it plays out.

Ishmael

 

[toubab]

Here's an interesting 100% post-debate "scientific" poll, for those who find such polls interesting and/or important:

https://www.scribd.com/document/325...September-26-2016-Post-Debate-Poll#from_embed

To summarize, for those who don't want to click on the link, or who don't want to dig through all the data, Hillary Clinton was thought to have done better in the debate, by 48 to 43, but the debate changed very few minds on who gets their vote. Most who changed their minds switched to Trump, interestingly, by a wide margin. Of those who didn't change their minds, representing 95% of the total, Trump leads 48-43.

Party affiliation for the 890 registered voters polled was 38% Democrat, 33% Republican, 29% Independent. Females were 53% of those polled, males 47%. Whites were 66% of the sample, blacks 16%, Hispanics 15%, Asians 3%.

It's a Breitbart/Gravis poll, which automatically makes it suspect, of course.

 

[Adre]

Some people never tire of being utterly wrong.

 

[Lorilei]

Aaahahahaha! Hilarious.

 

[Hypoxia]

It's a Breitbart/Gravis poll, which automatically makes it suspect, of course.

Quite so -- even more so than 'polls' that AREN'T designed as propaganda. Online polls are worthless; respondents self-select, and cheat. Telephone polls are worthless; people lie, or hang up, or just don't answer. Door-to-door polls aren't much better.

Who to trust? Greedy bastards in free markets. I posted a link yesterday (#310 above) to a WaPo story about currency traders and online gamblers. Where they put their money showed they thought Tromp lost as soon as he opened his mouth. Yeah, this is a market-based solution to polling. People get thoughtful when their cash is at stake.

 

[sr71plt]

Who to trust? Greedy bastards in free markets. I posted a link yesterday (#310 above) to a WaPo story about currency traders and online gamblers. Where they put their money showed they thought Tromp lost as soon as he opened his mouth. Yeah, this is a market-based solution to polling. People get thoughtful when their cash is at stake.

The Greedy bastards in free markets might be a good indicator, yes. PredictIt was running Clinton 69 percent, Trump 31 percent before Monday's debate and Clinton 74 percent and Trump 26 percent on Tuesday, the day after the debate.

http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/2016/09/27/Who-Won-Debate-Markets-Make-It-Clear

 

[BotanyBoy]

The Greedy bastards in free markets might be a good indicator, yes.

I thought you hated the free market because it's evil and hates both black people and women.



Aren't you a Hillary supporter?

 

[Emerson40]

 

[Wrong Element]

Here's an interesting 100% post-debate "scientific" poll, for those who find such polls interesting and/or important:

https://www.scribd.com/document/325...September-26-2016-Post-Debate-Poll#from_embed

To summarize, for those who don't want to click on the link, or who don't want to dig through all the data, Hillary Clinton was thought to have done better in the debate, by 48 to 43, but the debate changed very few minds on who gets their vote. Most who changed their minds switched to Trump, interestingly, by a wide margin. Of those who didn't change their minds, representing 95% of the total, Trump leads 48-43.

Party affiliation for the 890 registered voters polled was 38% Democrat, 33% Republican, 29% Independent. Females were 53% of those polled, males 47%. Whites were 66% of the sample, blacks 16%, Hispanics 15%, Asians 3%.

It's a Breitbart/Gravis poll, which automatically makes it suspect, of course.

I don't know much about Breitbart's polls (I've sort of heard of Gravis), but if the sample started out with (in essence) a 5-point advantage for Trump, that's a pretty pro-Trump group, since I think both Five Thirty Eight and RCP had Clinton up by about 2 points nationally in their averages as of Monday.

I'm not surprised that few minds were changed by the debate (I said a few pages ago that's what I expected), but I find it almost impossible to believe a truly undecided voter could have watched it and come away feeling more comfortable with the idea of Trump as President. What in the world could they be responding to?

 

[toubab]

I don't know much about Breitbart's polls (I've sort of heard of Gravis), but if the sample started out with (in essence) a 5-point advantage for Trump, that's a pretty pro-Trump group, since I think both Five Thirty Eight and RCP had Clinton up by about 2 points nationally in their averages as of Monday.

I'm not surprised that few minds were changed by the debate (I said a few pages ago that's what I expected), but I find it almost impossible to believe a truly undecided voter could have watched it and come away feeling more comfortable with the idea of Trump as President. What in the world could they be responding to?

I can understand why an undecided could believe Clinton is a better debater but decide Trump would be a better president.

 

[Christobal]

I don't need my mind changed. I don't like either of them but they are the two we have to choose from. I was hoping one would give a vision I could get behind. I got nothing. No big picture ideas. Mostly pandering and insults.

 

[toubab]

I don't need my mind changed. I don't like either of them but they are the two we have to choose from. I was hoping one would give a vision I could get behind. I got nothing. No big picture ideas. Mostly pandering and insults.

I watched the whole thing and I can't think of a single substantive thing I learned that I didn't already know. It was a poor excuse for a debate.

 

[BotanyBoy]

I don't need my mind changed. I don't like either of them but they are the two we have to choose from.

The R v D mainstream media brainwashing continues to work.