First presidential debate - September 26: Trump vs Hillary

[Endus]

He never stopped lying the entire debate - one after another. On almost every topic - new and old. I believe Clinton had one little hiccup re TPP - she did in fact say it was the Gold Standard, iirc.

But Trump's every breath was a lie.

I don't even agree that was really a "hiccup"; she "hiccuped" over her precise wording, but she freely acknowledged that she'd said it was a good trade agreement, but that the timing on that statement was from early in the negotiations, and by the time the agreement was finalized, it had changed enough that she could no longer support it, and had by that time changed her position.

Which is exactly how things actually played out.

[Captain N]

He never stopped lying the entire debate - one after another. On almost every topic - new and old. I believe Clinton had one little hiccup re TPP - she did in fact say it was the Gold Standard, iirc.

But Trump's every breath was a lie.

Yep the TPP was the hiccup as well as a comment about Trump's tax returns. He did show them in three years in the 70s -- There's a Politifact break down of the Truth-O-Meter of the debate. Naturally Trump supporters will cry bias about it but it pings alot of Trump's stuff as False or Mostly False while Clinton's shows as True or Mostly True.

[Narwal]

People saying Trump won didn't watch the debate. By any measurable standard Clinton was ahead by a mile.

Policy
Coherence
Train of Thought
Answering the Question
Circling around to the larger Point
Truthfulness

Again, you're measuring against those things you listed. However, unlike the scholastic debating contests, a Presidential debate doesn't have a scoring judge to decide a victor. Who won the debate is in the mind of each individual that watched. Every person goes into viewing this debate, not with a clean slate for each candidate, but with their prior opinions of those candidates. So really, the only way to judge this debate is to look at opinions of the mass, they are the judge, not you or I.

[LilSaihah]

What exactly would they gain from that? Just another 25 million mouths to feed who happen to be indoctrinated in a far more extreme Marxist ideology than has been seen in China in quite some time. Nobody wants that problem, not China, not South Korea, and definitely not the US.

China has already shown that they aren't afraid to purge members of the population that their government deems undesirable. They could very much move in, purge, and just enjoy the lebensraum.

[Deleted]

Wow.

http://www.infowars.com/poll-who-won...ential-debate/

hui.

so it looks like I was right with my feeling

[cubby]

I certainly agree that Trump didn't win the debate but I don't think Clinton drew quite the decisive advantage that's being suggested.

I could see an argument for her not being as strong as we know she can. However, that might have been intentional. Hillary is a master of the political debate, and she knew she's be up against a first-timer. It's possible her team prep'd her for two (or more) contingencies, one of which being that Trump regresses to his old bullying and lying self, in which case she plays a little more conservatively, and a little less strong-arm. Hence last night with all the smiling and laughing and "are you seeing this buffoon next to me". Then at the end, she hits strong and hard, knowing it will set him off and over the abyss. Which it did.

Her lack of decisiveness might have been intentional to prop up Trump's bullying and lying.

[Daerio]

And it also literally never happened. It's a deliberate lie.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...5bc_story.html

She thinks she's royalty that can demand 50,000$ just for an appearance before her to make a request. This is modern day monarchy.

Clinton then had those emails deleted with Bleachbit once investigation was looming, and then claimed those emails were only related to yoga and Chelsea's wedding. If she was anyone other than royalty, she would be in jail.

[Endus]

Again, you're measuring against those things you listed. However, unlike the scholastic debating contests, a Presidential debate doesn't have a scoring judge to decide a victor. Who won the debate is in the mind of each individual that watched. Every person goes into viewing this debate, not with a clean slate for each candidate, but with their prior opinions of those candidates. So really, the only way to judge this debate is to look at opinions of the mass.

And the only people who "matter" in that sense are those who were undecided or who were disillusioned enough to not be wanting to vote. If the debate convinces any of that particular demographic to vote for either candidate, that's "success". People who were already going to vote for Clinton or Trump don't matter, unless the debate changed that view for them. So it's completely irrelevant how much Trump voters think Trump won; they aren't who the debate was for.

[Jibjub]

I think they both did decently. The fact that Hillary didn't obliterate Trump (with her 30 years experience in politics) and that Trump didn't come off as a complete oaf and doofus makes me think Trump might have taken the edge, but I can see how you might think Hillary took the night.

The moderator was clearly hell-bent on keeping Trump on the defensive (which is why most pundits were saying he seemed on the defensive -- he was lol). They spent about 3x more time on the Birther issue than Hillary's e-mails. The next debate will hopefully be more policy questions. We'll see.

Hillary's emails, Benghazi and the Clinton foundation were not really discussed yet either (in depth), so those are coming up, in debates closer to the election which help Trump, in my opinion.

They both will review video and I look forward to #2.

[Noxx79]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...5bc_story.html

She thinks she's royalty that can demand 50,000$ just for an appearance before her to make a request. This is modern day monarchy.

From your own link
"The emails show that, in these and similar cases, the donors did not always get what they wanted, particularly when they sought anything more than a meeting."

So, people who gave a lot of money to clinton foundation assumed they could get whatever they want from her, and all they got was a courtesy meeting.

Sounds like integrity to me.

[Macaquerie]

China has already shown that they aren't afraid to purge members of the population that their government deems undesirable. They could very much move in, purge, and just enjoy the lebensraum.

China has plenty of land area already, adding North Korea to that would just amount to a rounding error. If they really wanted to make a land grab they'd probably go for a slice of the Russian Far East, which is certainly in play at some point as Russia's economic and military power continues to decline.

[Daerio]

From your own link
"The emails show that, in these and similar cases, the donors did not always get what they wanted, particularly when they sought anything more than a meeting."

So, people who gave a lot of money to clinton foundation assumed they could get whatever they want from her, and all they got was a courtesy meeting.

Sounds like integrity to me.

Sounds like she grants wishes at a whim, but she's still selling out her office and gets paid whether or not she delivers.

The "donation" up front is for access only. Another bribe beyond that may also be required.

[Felya]

I think the biggest problem Clinton has is balancing the load of bullshit she's carrying on her back any time she opens her mouth. It's why she can't come off as smooth and natural, because she's bullshitting the entire time and trying to appear calm and collected and "presidential".

This is exactly what I meant in my last two posts.

Yes, Hillary seemed to be trying to be presidential... Yes, she thought before speaking... These wouldn't be negatives in any other debate, but she is debating Trump. Trying to be presidential and thinking before speaking, are negatives for Trump support.

[Endus]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...5bc_story.html

She thinks she's royalty that can demand 50,000$ just for an appearance before her to make a request. This is modern day monarchy.

Literally nothing in your own source supports your ridiculous accusations. In fact, multiple statements in your own source directly contradict you.

[Felya]

Again, you're measuring against those things you listed. However, unlike the scholastic debating contests, a Presidential debate doesn't have a scoring judge to decide a victor. Who won the debate is in the mind of each individual that watched. Every person goes into viewing this debate, not with a clean slate for each candidate, but with their prior opinions of those candidates. So really, the only way to judge this debate is to look at opinions of the mass, they are the judge, not you or I.

Confirmation number two....

[Daerio]

This is exactly what I meant in my last two posts.

Yes, Hillary seemed to be trying to be presidential... Yes, she thought before speaking... These wouldn't be negatives in any other debate,

Those other politicians I just listed also think before speaking, yet they can be honest without having to worry about a past lie catching up with them immediately.

[LilSaihah]

I could see an argument for her not being as strong as we know she can. However, that might have been intentional. Hillary is a master of the political debate, and she knew she's be up against a first-timer. It's possible her team prep'd her for two (or more) contingencies, one of which being that Trump regresses to his old bullying and lying self, in which case she plays a little more conservatively, and a little less strong-arm. Hence last night with all the smiling and laughing and "are you seeing this buffoon next to me". Then at the end, she hits strong and hard, knowing it will set him off and over the abyss. Which it did.

Her lack of decisiveness might have been intentional to prop up Trump's bullying and lying.

I think it's entirely likely that she prepped with the assumption that Trump would be debating like he would've debated in the primaries. Trump specifically altered his strategy to avoid the WIFOM, but the relatively withdrawn debating strategy (he did pull a lot of punches that I wouldn't have expected of him) either put him in a position that he is not comfortable in, or he's more interested in winning the war rather than the battle.

I've also seen a bit of "the moderator was focusing Trump/helping Clinton" in the circles I read in, but I would need to review the transcripts and rewatch the debate to really make an assessment on the veracity of that suggestion.

China has plenty of land area already, adding North Korea to that would just amount to a rounding error. If they really wanted to make a land grab they'd probably go for a slice of the Russian Far East, which is certainly in play at some point as Russia's economic and military power continues to decline.

This is the same issue as suggesting that Canada or Russia has a lot of land. Yes, they occupy a lot of landmass, but that land is not necessarily arable or otherwise valuable.

Trying to pick a fight with Russia would be very silly for China.

[Breccia]

I think they both did decently. The fact that Hillary didn't obliterate Trump (with her 30 years experience in politics) and that Trump didn't come off as a complete oaf and doofus makes me think Trump might have taken the edge

Please read that back to yourself.

No, really. Read that back, and dwell on what you said, means.

[Daerio]

Literally nothing in your own source supports your ridiculous accusations. In fact, multiple statements in your own source directly contradict you.

Your complete lack of reasoning here is astounding. There's no discussion to be had here because you literally aren't making an argument.

The link is right there. I've explained exactly what she's doing. You've responded with 3 posts with no substance that all basically mean, "Nuh uh!" Are you short circuiting right now, or just waiting on a response from your CTR superior?

[alexw]

This is a very good point. Clinton definitely won the debate by objective standards, but Trumpers don't care about those - and so yes, to them he won (that 400 lb comment was insane). However, the issue isn't whether Trumpers would abandon their support - if you already support Trump there is no helping you (not you Felya, but "you" in general").

However, the debate was about undecideds - and in that category Clinton won by a landslide. There was was only one Presidential figure on that stage last night. Maybe Trump can be ambassador to North Korea.

Die hard Clintonistas will stay with Clinton. Die hard Trumpists will stay with Trump. So the debate was not for them.

The debate was for moderates and soft supporters of either candidate and Clinton won them in a landslide. From the comments on Trumps latino beauty queen "Miss housekeeper" and his reply "where are you getting this from?" To his statements on the federal taxes he pays "If I did (pay federal taxes), they'd be wasted". It all hurt him with this moderate bunch.