Debate Thread

WRT the article that JF posted above, this bit struck me as telling:

Democrats here are more traditional in their values — they are pro-gun, pro-life, pro-coal, something today’s Democratic Party has left no room for.

Trump probably connects better with such voters than did Romney in 2012, or John McCain in 2008.
Click to expand...

So many folks seem to vote Dem even tho their personal values do not line up with the Dem party at all. The Dem party that they associate with left long ago. It amazes me how people continually vote against their own interests just because "that's the way I have always voted" or "my parents voted this way so I do too".

Still, this article kinda backs up those that say how the press views Trump's performance and how voters in "flyover country" view it are completely different.
 
There is speculation that Hillary was communicating with Lester Holt via prearranged signals, like a baseball manager. It's far fetched, but knowing how crooked the Clintons are, it's not outside the realm of possibility. I refuse to watch that boring BS again to try to match Hillary's hand signals to Lester's interruptions.

This is probably her "bullsh-t, bullsh-t" signal. Indicating Lester should challenge/interrupt Trump.

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/201...y-sending-hand-signals-debate-moderator-holt/

hillary-hand-signal-575x380.jpg
 
What is really freaky about Trump in this video is how normal he sounds. He is on topic, self-deprecating about his weight, empathetic, and has a normal cadence and rhythm to his speaking pattern. His answers are short and to the point. He is teasing with the reporters and has very little of the braggadocio he uses now. I can actually see how he was once a charming man. (and the piles of cash didn't hurt either!)
But...
Where has this Trump gone? I had to turn off the debate during the middle, as his behavior was too reminiscent of my late father's. My dad was a wonderful man, until the last 8 or so years of his life, when he drastically changed. I can't say he had dementia, as he was able to charm social workers, physicians, EMTs. He even, from his death bed, talked a Honda salesman on the phone into selling him a car and had it driven to the hospital after I took the keys away from him.
However, something in his brain had deteriorated to the point where he was irrational to a fault. (hiding his will from us kids, cancelling his life insurance policy after paying into it for 50+ years, etc.)
Trump's debate style was eerily similar, the yelling, interrupting, switching from nonsense to some sense, the bait and switch, the forced charm.

I'm starting to wonder if we have two Presidential candidates with some serious health issues.
And, as an aside, I find it incredibly desperate that the Hillary campaign is dredging up this old news to attack Trump. I know she needs moms to win, but this is ridiculous.
This woman has an incredibly shady past, and, if you win a beauty pageant, you sign a document stating that you will remain in the same shape throughout your reign. If HRC wants to go back to that year, (as I saw on TV) that was the year Mrs. Clinton called young black people super predators and was "dodging sniper fire".
Let's all move on, please.
 
Last edited:
Couldn't comment right away, because I couldn't watch the debate live. (I'm not getting up at or staying up until 3:00 a.m. to watch these crappy candidates.)

I think there were really two debates. For the first 40 minutes or so, Trump was mediocre - about a B- or C level performance. He wasn't great like some commentators have suggested. He stumbled over his words and was often incoherent, and it was clear that he's very new to advocating conservative policy and doesn't know it beyond the most superficial levels. Furthermore, he blew several opportunities, but he also got some good licks in. The train wasn't roaring, but it was at least on the track with the engine running albeit with hesitation. However, as the debate wore on, he completely imploded. He virtually stopped talking issues and spent almost all of his speaking time rambling to defend against attacks Hillary was dishing out or trying to explain away stupid things he has said.

So what went wrong on substance? First, he let Hillary argue that low taxes and inadequate spending led to the financial crisis and Great Recession without any serious rebuttal. I damn near kicked in my TV set when he just let that slide. What kind of ******** argument is that? He should have brought up Bill signing the repeal of Glass-Steagall, which would have allowed him to segue into ripping her sleazy connections with the banking industry. It would have put her on the defensive on an issue on which she has no meaningful defense and would have pleased the Bernie Sanders crowd.

Second, he babbled incoherently when asked how he'd bring jobs back. He should have had a concise answer. "What we're going to do first is make sure the government stops encouraging them to leave. Our corporate tax rate is one of the highest in the world. We need to bring it down to a rate that's more competitive with what other nations impose. Second, we need to roll back some of the more onerous regulations that are suppressing growth, especially Obamacare and the crippling restrictions on domestic energy production that are hurting our workers in places like Pennsylvania and West Virginia. However, we also need to use punitive measures. If a company decides that in spite of our efforts to foster a fairer business climate, it wants to flea to another country and export to the United States, we're going to impose a tax on its goods to make sure it doesn't undercut the businesses that stayed in the US and produced good jobs for the American people."

Third, he was too easy on Hillary on the race/police issue. Though she did it using delicate verbiage, she basically blamed everything on police racism and guns. Trump rightly called for law and order, but he overplayed that and needed to do more. He should have condemned Hillary for presuming the worst of our police officers (which she did), who do everything they can to keep neighborhoods (including black neighborhoods) as safe as possible. He also should have have torn her a new one for rushing to judgment in the various police shootings. Her overt pandering and immaturity on the issue has been disgraceful and very easy to attack. And he NEVER should have gone along with her on any facet of the gun issue. That was just plain dumb. I also would have backpedaled on how crappy black areas are. He has already made his point on that, and everybody knows black areas are mostly bad areas without him celebrating the point. What he should have done is pitch an agenda that promotes job growth in those areas, and he should have promoted school choice - another issue he could hammer Hillary over.

Fourth, big blunder on the foreign policy and cybersecurity issue. Hillary gave what would be a superb, textbook answer for any other politician - but not for her. She had an illegal private e-mail server, which forever makes her the poster child for sloppy cybersecurity. But what did Trump do? He completely neglects Hillary's weakness on the issue and goes off on a rabbit trail questioning whether Russia was involved in the DNC hacks. Probably the biggest blown opportunity in the debate.

Fifth, he wasn't prepared for the income tax and birther issues, which is indefensible. Only an idiot wouldn't see that coming. Even if Holt didn't bring them up, Hillary sure as hell was going to bring them up. He had a few sassy remarks about them (some of which were better than others), but he needed a lot more conciseness and a lot less hem hawing around. He should have had a very clear and well-stated case for why Hillary and her campaign tried to exploit the birther issue.

Other problems that are more related to form than substance. First, he interrupted way too much, and it made him look like a jerk. I think one can interrupt in a debate, but you have to pick your battles and to it very selectively. It seemed like he was talking over her every time she spoke, and most of the time, the interruptions weren't effective. "Where did you find this?," "[not paying taxes] makes me smart," "you've been fighting ISIS your entire adult life," etc. were some of the snarky, stupid lines he tossed in usually through interruptions, and they just just made him look like prick. They did nothing to help his case.

Second, at the risk of being lewd with ladies present in this forum, Trump must have small penis issues like Rubio suggested, because the guy just couldn't resist the urge to blab about his greatness and even worse, the urge to get defensive when his greatness was questioned. How many times did he actively or passively suggest that he had a lot of money? Who cares where he owns property? Who cares if he's "underleveraged?" How many Americans even know what that means? On foreign policy, I damn near spit up my beer when he said NATO started making terrorism a priority when he started talking about it - as if NATO sits by and waits for Trump to talk before setting its priorities. When he caught Hillary in the flip-flop on the TPP, instead of saying that she supported it until she heard him make such a great case against it, why not say she opposed it until Bernie Sanders made such a great case against it? That would have been far more effective, because she can't afford to piss his people off. But instead, he just fed his own delusions of grandeur. "Look at these big hands!!"

Third, he let Hillary set the agenda far too much in the second half. He was starting to get the upper hand on a few things early, and she just started going after him about tax returns, race, and his nutty comments about women, and he just set himself on fire. He could have dismissed her attacks as an irrelevant diversion to keep from talking about real issues (which would have been a true response) and then immediately gotten back on issues. Why not use the anti-woman junk to talk about his maternity leave plan? Why not use them to discuss how proud he is of the hardworking women who work for his business or say something nice about women in his family like his wife, his daughter, etc.? Instead, he had to belabor the point about how mean her attacks where and how he passed on saying the worst things (presumably about Bill's infidelity) because they weren't nice. That was the most painful exchange, but he behaved like that most of the second half of the debate.

Can Trump put out the dumpster fire in the next debates? Most likely, yes. Mitt Romney mopped the floor with Obama in the first debate in 2012, and Obama rebounded well in the next ones and won the election. However, he needs to take them much more seriously than he took this one, because if the same Trump shows up again, he's going to get "schlonged."
 
I agree that with the correct approach, HRC is ripe for the picking. I feel like (from the half I could stand to watch) that even I could have given her a decent run.
She is such a terrible speaker and communicator. You could almost see her pulling lines from the file she had memorized in her head with every response.
To me, the most impactful thing Trump did was when he mentioned her 30 years in government, and what had she accomplished. That question alone would bring up a lot of crickets and waffling from Hillary. And, as Deez pointed out, there were so many missed opportunities, two inch putts that he totally missed due to his temper.

Trump was a dumpster fire, and I hear he is going to get more aggressive next debate. In my view, that is the wrong road to go down, however, every single time he did that in the primary debates his numbers kept going up, so maybe I know nothing! I try and keep telling my "shimmy-loving, she wiped the floor with him" friends who are all for Hilz, to temper their smugness over her win based on the history of Trump. It seemed like the nastier he gets, the higher his numbers go. The polls, for what they are worth, will be very interesting.

As far as HRC goes, this is all she's got. You will see the same Hillary 3x, and you will see 3 different Trump versions each time. I'm betting he comes out super aggressive on the 2nd debate (with some major prep and practice) then on the 3rd attempts to be the calm, more Presidential Trump in order to try and close the deal.
Hillary's style reminds me of an average Joe at an open mic night at a Comedy Club. The best comedians in the country could give her the most amazing jokes in the world, but she wouldn't get a laugh. There is a talent in making words soar, in taking talking points to a different place, and she has absolutely zero talent in that area. Her delivery is so canned and insincere it is hard to watch.
She has so little empathy, so little clue of how to look in to a camera and speak from the heart. And her fake smiles, laughter and that shimmy, well, I will see that in my nightmares for a long while. >shudder<
I can't bear the thought of listening to either of them speak words for 4 years.
 
Last edited:
Joe Fan said:
......Here is a question -- One thing we learned in the past few days is that Obama lied about knowing about HRC's private server. Which offers an explanation for the FBI's non-bill of Hillary. In other words, they did not want to go there bc eventually you will run into Barrack, who directs DOJ. Should Trump take a shot at Obama over this? It's there if he wants it, and would be consistent with his theme that all politicians are corrupt - its time for something new, etc. But criticizing Obama carries a risk. Should Trump go for it, or let this one go?
Click to expand...


Nice to see the National Review has caught up with me

 
Joe Fan said:
Nice to see the National Review has caught up with me

Click to expand...


First CNN, now National Review? FoxNews' lasting legacy is that trafficking opinion as "news" or simply tailoring and translating the facts towards a preconceived agenda is the best way to profit. It wasn't Trump that triggered the "can't trust the media" it was the profit motive suddenly taking precedence over any sort of journalistic standards.
 
I agree with Holland. Trump looks and sounds so relaxed.
Since he defended her I wonder why she is against him now
 
Seattle Husker said:
First CNN, now National Review? FoxNews' lasting legacy is that trafficking opinion as "news" ........
Click to expand...

Gosh you always seem to get things backwards. "Opinion as news" began well before Fox News or even cable TV. What sticks out in my memory is when Walter Conkrite began editorializing as fact ("what begins here ...."). Late in his career, Conkrite became an activist reading the nightly over-the-air news. He attempted to bring down an entire administration. But maybe it goes back further than Walter.

Besides the bad facts, your conclusion also lacks logic and reason. The part you you got backwards this time is that newscasters "trafficking opinion as news" is not what keeps Fox News in 1st place but rather is what created Fox News to begin with. For if the mainstream media had played it straight, if they were not treating their opinions as fact, then there would have been no space for Fox in the market. There would have been no reason for FNC to exist at all.

If you let it alone to do its job, the marketplace will reveal who is right and wrong. And the marketplace has spoken loudly with regard to both Fox News itself and the TV "news" that existed prior to Fox.
 
Last edited:
The reason I don't trust the polls is because of how the turn out in the primaries. I believe I heard at the time that there was a minus 30% turn out for the dems across the nation and the Repub were up about 30%. So there is a ton more excitement on one side than the other. Polls can get the results they want when polling who and where.
 
Last edited:
South Park is piling on HRC's robotic, script reading. :smile1:

Here's her presidential debate vs. South Park Elementary teacher Mr. Garrison...
 
Hollandtx said:
I hear he is going to get more aggressive next debate. In my view, that is the wrong road to go down, however, every single time he did that in the primary debates his numbers kept going up, so maybe I know nothing! I try and keep telling my "shimmy-loving, she wiped the floor with him" friends who are all for Hilz, to temper their smugness over her win based on the history of Trump. It seemed like the nastier he gets, the higher his numbers go. The polls, for what they are worth, will be very interesting.
Click to expand...

A few things on this. First, it depends on what's meant by "aggressive." If he's going to get more aggressive on policy and substance, then I agree that he should. He was terribly weak on issues and not particularly assertive. If he's going to get more belligerent, interrupt more, and berate more, that's a mistake.

Second, I need to comment on the "shoulder-shimmy." Many people are saying how "cool" the shimmy was. The political media loved it. However, what if Trump had done something like that or made any kind of combative or dismissive physical gesture? He'd be getting impaled by the media, and they'd find a way to infer sexism into it. Hell, they're ripping him for sniffling. Howard Dean even suggested that he might be snorting cocaine because he sniffled, and people with cocaine sniffle a lot. Of course, so does anyone with a cold or allergies, but he just ignored that fact.

Third, it's true that the nastier and more hostile he gets, the better his poll numbers get, but that was mostly true in the primary. This is a different electorate. White dudes in rural areas (who dominate the GOP primary electorate) like that combativeness, but he's got them in the bag. Conservative and conservative-leaning moderate women and educated men in suburban areas are who he needs to be targeting, and I suspect that the "I'm a rich badass" approach doesn't impress them very much.

Hollandtx said:
There is a talent in making words soar, in taking talking points to a different place, and she has absolutely zero talent in that area. Her delivery is so canned and insincere it is hard to watch.
She has so little empathy, so little clue of how to look in to a camera and speak from the heart. And her fake smiles, laughter and that shimmy, well, I will see that in my nightmares for a long while. >shudder<
Click to expand...

Political pundits have hailed her talents for years, and I've never understood it. She's not dumb, but she's shrill, insincere, and has no passion at all. Her supporters can dismiss that characterization as sexist (as they typically do), but whatever it is, huge numbers of people know it and believe it. It's as clear as the nose on your face. That's why she's in a tight race with perhaps the weakest major party presidential nominee in a century. If the Democrats had nominated just a normal mainstream Democrat with mediocre qualifications, he or she would be up 15 points and on the way to 400 electoral votes.

Hollandtx said:
And, as an aside, I find it incredibly desperate that the Hillary campaign is dredging up this old news to attack Trump. I know she needs moms to win, but this is ridiculous.
This woman has an incredibly shady past, and, if you win a beauty pageant, you sign a document stating that you will remain in the same shape throughout your reign.
Click to expand...

I think she decided to go with Machado, because she could hit him for being anti-woman and anti-Hispanic in one shot. The problem is that Machado is easy to attack, and frankly, the anti-Latino stuff was unnecessary. Latinos know Trump isn't their guy, and he has said enough to motivate them. Instead, I think she should have brought up what he said about Carly Fiorina. His comments were much more recent and were said about a well-respected and decent woman. Furthermore, since she's a Republican, you wouldn't see any conservatives attacking her to pull attention away from Trump's comments.
 
It's hard for me to believe, but public policy polling says Clinton got a huge post debate bounce and now leads head to head nationally, 44-40, and in five battle ground states: NC. Fla, Va, Colo, Penn. If true, that would shut out any path to the WH for Trump.

http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/

Trump better pull his head out of his a@@ and do some debate prep before no. 2. I heard that Laura Ingraham offered to pose as Hillary in practice debates and he declined. She'd have been perfect.

To make matters worse, Trump has been focusing on Bill Clinton's antics since the debate. I guess since they hit him with the Venezuelan bimbo, he feels the need to hit back in the same vein. Bad move on his part.
 
Clean said:
It's hard for me to believe, but public policy polling says Clinton got a huge post debate bounce and now leads head to head nationally, 44-40, and in five battle ground states: NC. Fla, Va, Colo, Penn. If true, that would shut out any path to the WH for Trump.
Click to expand...

Why is that hard to believe? If you stink the place up in a debate watched by tens of millions of people, it's going to hurt your polling numbers and help the person who didn't stink it up.
 
As always many are grossly underestimating the modern day Teflon Don. If anything Trump is a winner and will devote himself to prevent a repeat.

He knows she got the better of him. Although, not in a drastic way like some are overstating (like Romney did to Obama in their 1st round).

Still he's heard all the chatter even from supporters about letting her off the hook countless times. He's also seen HRC talking smack and gloating ever since.

Those who think Trump is not burning inside to get to Round 2 and turn the tide aren't familiar with his relentless drive to win.

Just as many here completely wrote him off soon after the Latino judge comments and fall in polls...be prepared for another reversal of fortune soon enough.

And to be honest, I doubt the post-debate poll fallout is all that bad. Fox News polls come out today. If significant damage is shown in that one (right leaning), then we'll know ground was really lost and needs to be regained in Round 2. Which it will.
 
Everyone expects Trump to come out in Debate 2 guns blazing. The obvious risk is that it could potentially reinforce the "lacks the temperament" argument from the HRC camp. It's being reported the Trump camp is directing his surrogates to now talk up Bill's infidelity. Is that wise? Trump's history isn't exactly sterling. The only one that looks good is the candidate that doesn't have a history of infidelity although HRC's documented treatment of Bill's accusers is not good. Still, does this topic have any hope of being a "winner" for Trump, specifically for women that aren't already decided for R candidate? Trump's proclivity to making tone-deaf statements adds further risk to this strategy.
 
I can't believe that either candidate thinks that dredging up situations that happened over 20 years ago should be a focus in any debate, or frankly, on the campaign trail.
If it were me, I would pull the old Chris Christie, look in to the camera and say, "these aren't the 3-4 issues that we should be discussing today. What did or didn't happen in the 90s is irrelevant to what is happening to our country and where we are today. Times and issues have changed dramatically. Is this what you folks want to hear us fight over/discuss?" and shut this stuff down now.

By the way, that is how I feel. Presidents have a long history of fooling around, and Trump will not win in a tit for tat battle with HRC, even though she was a total enabler for Bill, and tried to ruin his accusers.
If you are trying to focus on the undecided voter, I doubt this history means a hill of beans to them.

Focus on what brung ya to the dance...and it wasn't he said/she said crap from 20+ years ago. Trump: jobs, safety, change. Hillary: experience, and I couldn't tell you what her talking points are. But, dragging up some has-been beauty pageant winner, or re-hashing Bill's gross sexual escapades isn't going to win any new votes.

It just keeps getting more incredibly disgusting.
 
Hollandtx said:
I can't believe that either candidate thinks that dredging up situations that happened over 20 years ago should be a focus in any debate, or frankly, on the campaign trail.
If it were me, I would pull the old Chris Christie, look in to the camera and say, "these aren't the 3-4 issues that we should be discussing today. What did or didn't happen in the 90s is irrelevant to what is happening to our country and where we are today. Times and issues have changed dramatically. Is this what you folks want to hear us fight over/discuss?" and shut this stuff down now.

By the way, that is how I feel. Presidents have a long history of fooling around, and Trump will not win in a tit for tat battle with HRC, even though she was a total enabler for Bill, and tried to ruin his accusers.
If you are trying to focus on the undecided voter, I doubt this history means a hill of beans to them.

Focus on what brung ya to the dance...and it wasn't he said/she said crap from 20+ years ago. Trump: jobs, safety, change. Hillary: experience, and I couldn't tell you what her talking points are. But, dragging up some has-been beauty pageant winner, or re-hashing Bill's gross sexual escapades isn't going to win any new votes.

It just keeps getting more incredibly disgusting.
Click to expand...

I agree but one could argue that this IS what "brung [Trump] to the dance". The outrageous-nous of his insults to Jeb (Mr. Low Energy), Marco (Little Marco), Carly Fiorina and others. Trump like to wallow in the mud and his supporters celebrate it as a badge of honor.

Like you, I think bringing this stuff ups is dumb especially when there are recent examples like Trump's verbal assaults on Fiorina and Megyn Kelly if you are trying to demonstrate he's a misogynist.
 
I agree that there is plenty of more recent ammo, if you will, that reflects Trump's misogynistic ways, however, beauty queen is a 2 for 1, unlike the women you mention.
She is a woman, AND she is a person who they hope will tap in to the Latino, Mexican voter base.
Megyn Kelly, Carly Fiorina, Rosie, etc. all have the issue of being white women, so you know, who cares. Plus MK and CF are Republicans. Who cares. It's only a poor Latina who speaks broken English and was fat shamed 20 years ago that matters.

Trump supposedly called her not only fat, but also a housekeeper or something.
That, my friend, is liberal gold. Even if she is a crazy, lying, get away car driving woman.
She has that great accent, you know. >sigh< I'm sure the HRC camp is scouring the bushes hunting for a black woman who may have been slighted, all the while Trump is tweeting to watch porn movies in the wee hours.
You can't make this stuff up.
 
Hollandtx said:
Even if she is a crazy, lying, get away car driving woman.
Click to expand...

I don't think it's a smart strategy to smear Machado, because it doesn't exonerate Trump and doesn't make her any more deserving of his insults. In fact, I'm pretty sure her stupid deeds took place after Trump's idiocy. Instead of trashing her, I think Trump should concede that he made a stupid statement 20 years ago as a private citizen, point out that we have more important issues and move on. Quit talking about it and keeping the story alive.
 
I concur. However, this is Trump. His strategy is "you come at me, I'll come at you 4x as hard, no matter the cost or how it looks".
His thin skin is biting him in the rear.
I don't think Trump could be contrite or apologize with a gun to Ivanka's head.
I don't think it is physically possible for him to say, "I was wrong, I am sorry" and stop there. No more words to follow. Stop. right. there.
Can't do it. Should do it, but just can't.
Now, we are in a smear-a-thon from events from 20 years ago.
 
Hollandtx said:
I can't believe that either candidate thinks that dredging up situations that happened over 20 years ago should be a focus in any debate, or frankly, on the campaign trail. If it were me, I would pull the old Chris Christie, look in to the camera and say, "these aren't the 3-4 issues that we should be discussing today.
Click to expand...

I totally agree, but Trump can't help himself. He's taken what should have been a minor bump in the road and made it into a mountain by continuing to talk about it. The more he denigrates Machado, the more women will turn away from him.

Worse, there's no one on his team that can go to him and say "STFU Donald and it'll go away". I have no doubt this topic will dominate debate no. 2. Hillary has played him like a piano.
 
Hollandtx said:
I concur. However, this is Trump. His strategy is "you come at me, I'll come at you 4x as hard, no matter the cost or how it looks".
His thin skin is biting him in the rear.
I don't think Trump could be contrite or apologize with a gun to Ivanka's head.
I don't think it is physically possible for him to say, "I was wrong, I am sorry" and stop there. No more words to follow. Stop. right. there.
Can't do it. Should do it, but just can't.
Now, we are in a smear-a-thon from events from 20 years ago.
Click to expand...

As is so often the case, you are correct. However, I've always wondered why he backpedaled on Carly Fiorina. He didn't formally apologize, but he backed away from saying she had an ugly face. For him, that's almost an apology.
 
I admit I cringed when Trump brought up that his mic was messed up. Very sour grapes I thought and a really low excuse
turns out his mic was messed up.

"The Commission on Presidential Debates reported on Friday that there were in fact issues with Donald Trump’s microphone at the Debate Monday evening at Hofstra university in New York.
Following the debate, Trump told the press that they “gave me a defective mic. Did you notice that? My mic was defective within the room,” CNN reports. Trump posed the question: “Was that on purpose?”
While it may be too early to call it anything other than a technical malfunction, the Commission on Presidential Debates said “there were issues regarding Donald Trump’s audio that affected the sound level in the debate hall.”
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Weekly Prediction Contest

* Predict HORNS-AGGIES *
Sat, Nov 30 • 6:30 PM on ABC

Recent Threads

Prediction Results Threads

2024 Schedules

Back
Top