First presidential debate - September 26: Trump vs Hillary

[Gray_Matter]

http://www.politifact.com/personalities/donald-trump/

70% "mostly false", "false", or "pants on fire".

I am not sure how people can say that they believe what he says. It's really so obvious that it took me all of 5 minutes to find this. Look at 1:34:45 into the debate video.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=855A...=5685&end=5699

Then look at this next one from exactly 1 minute in.

http://www.nbcnews.com/widget/video-embed/693368899546

What's really telling is that he says "I never said that" the same way that he did to a lot of other things that were said about him. That raises the question. Should we believe any of the times that he answers the same way?

[Felya]

Generalizing every Trump supporter by making generalized judgments like this is really ironic.

My point was to say that individuals all have differing perceptions, and I doubt many serious voters thought Hillary was having Alzheimer.

Yes, but the person I was talking to did. You stepped in to defend a Trump supporter, without bothering to click the page before to follow the conversation. I'm not generalizing, you are assuming... Pretty funny actually...

Go check what you quoted... If you see "Trump supporters" then you have a point, if you see "you", then you are full of shit. Now, go check... Not Trump supporters are full of shit, you are...

- - - Updated - - -

Like Hillary herself, this is something several of her supporters like to do.

We will see in a few days when all the polls come in and are balanced out, how bad Trump did. And it will be the swing state polls we need to look at more seriously.
I predict the race will remain close, within the margin of error.

What actually happened here, is the person you are responding to, interjected him self into a conversation. He assumed that because I was responding to a Trump supporter, I must be generalizing. Instead of bothering to read previous posts to see I was talking directly to someone who made the claim.

So, in fact, this is an example of how people who make accusations such as above are full of shit and take things out of context to play the victim. So... Thanks!

[May90]

Would be funny if they implemented a score system on debates. Every time someone says a lie and the opponent demonstrates that it is a lie, the liar gets 1 penalty point. 3 penalty points per 1 debate = ban from participation in the current presidential race. 5 penalty points = ban from ever participating in a presidential race. 10 penalty points = accusation in a fraud and imprisonment.

Oh, how many people would get burned on that...

[DeadmanWalking]

I think the next debate ( VP) will be a little rougher, unlike trump Mike Pence is capable of thinking of what he wants to say before he says it and is experienced enough to know he can't wing the debate and will actually *gasp* practice for it, even though Trump surrogates argued that it was unamerican for Hillary to practice instead of being out there shaking hands with 'real americans'.

I really know very little about either guy as far as their political skills or ability to debate. It will probably be a yawn inducing draw.

[Zandalarian Paladin]

Yes, but the person I was talking to did. You stepped in to defend a Trump supporter, without bothering to click the page before to follow the conversation. I'm not generalizing, you are assuming... Pretty funny actually...

Go check what you quoted... If you see "Trump supporters" then you have a point, if you see "you", then you are full of shit. Now, go check... Not Trump supporters are full of shit, you are...

- - - Updated - - -



What actually happened here, is the person you are responding to, interjected him self into a conversation. He assumed that because I was responding to a Trump supporter, I must be generalizing. Instead of bothering to read previous posts to see I was talking directly to someone who made the claim.

So, in fact, this is an example of how people who make accusations such as above are full of shit and take things out of context to play the victim. So... Thanks!

You made a broad statement. "You" is a statement applicable to individuals and groups. I did not imagine anything, this is how it sounds to anyone who reads your posts.

Also you as a person need to find a better way to communicate on this forum.

[DeadmanWalking]

You made a broad statement. "You" is a statement applicable to individuals and groups. I did not imagine anything, this is how it sounds to anyone who reads your posts.

Also you as a person need to find a better way to communicate on this forum.

"You people", is a geralized statement. "You" is signaling an individual.

You don't have to win the internet, let it go. By you I mean Bloodelf4life of this forum on planet earth of this universe on this reality timeline.

[Zandalarian Paladin]

"You people", is a geralized statement. "You" is signaling an individual.

You don't have to win the internet, let it go. By you I mean Bloodelf4life of this forum on planet earth of this universe on this reality timeline.

How do you know we share the same reality timeline? You do know that time and reality are the perception of individuals, not a fact. So are you speaking to me, or an alternate me? Plus, you speak to Bloodelf4life, while I am named BloodElf4Life - does this mean you're asking a second individual with a similar name? In computer language, you would call a different person. Is this the reality you're speaking of?

Now, exageration aside, the first comment was ambiguous. You is not signaling an individual. It can signal an individual and a group.

"You think everything is permitted!" - an old women talking to some young kids on the road. Or a father to her daughter.

That's my point, really. If it wasn't intended that way, then no offense to the person I answered.

[Breccia]

I think the next debate ( VP) will be a little rougher, unlike trump Mike Pence is capable of thinking of what he wants to say before he says it and is experienced enough to know he can't wing the debate and will actually *gasp* practice for it, even though Trump surrogates argued that it was unamerican for Hillary to practice instead of being out there shaking hands with 'real americans'.

I disagree with Pence on a lot of things, as does his state (he did not carry a majority of it). But I've seen nothing but evidence he's a good debater and believes very strongly in Trump. After the first debate, Pence has pressure on him the likes of which I can't imagine. But...he chose to do it.

Kaine will be able to attack both Trump, and Pence, at the same time to keep him off-balance.
a) Pence has called Trump's Muslim ban unconstitutional.
b) Pence is a firm believer in NATO.
c) Pence was for the Iraq war at the time and admits it was a mistake, and that he was misled.
d) Pence supported TPP.
e) Pence voted against raising the minimum wage, which Trump's current platform wants to do
f) Pence took a swing at Trump when Trump took a swing at a judge of Mexican parentage.
g) Pence voted to expand Medicaid in his state.
h) Pence is firmly pro-life. Trump's views are...less certain.
i) Pence released his tax returns.
j) I just want to repeat that last one. Pence released his tax returns.

Now I'm guessing Kaine and Clinton aren't 100% either, but those differences, especially after the debate, will be big ones. Pence will not have the attack plans Trump used -- TPP and Iraq -- so he won't be able to stem the bleeding there. He'll fare no better with women due to his vigorous opposition with Planned Parenthood, there' zero chance he'll gain on Hispanics when going against Tim Kaine (que mala suerte!)m and has a 5% rating by the NAACP (they have not rated Kaine) so I don't see that helping either.

Debates are interesting things, but it looks like Pence has the larger load to burden. Hey, should we do the same thing as we did in the Trump-Clinton debates? Should we have higher expectations for Pence, and lower for Kaine, because Pence has the more important job? I mean, all that pressure on Clinton to perform was fair, so this should be too, right?

[-Nurot]

"You think everything is permitted!" - an old women talking to some young kids on the road. Or a father to her daughter.

Wouldn't the old lady in question most likely say you <kids, children, hoodlums, midget man-devils>, or something of that nature?

Most people don't, and shouldn't use you as a plural when it's meant to be singular unless denoted by a group of people following the you.

[Breccia]

The only person who thinks that Donald Trump didn't miss opportunities at the debate is...Donald Trump.

"I got everything I wanted to say. I got it out, other than the transgressions of Bill," said Trump, congratulating himself for not throwing a rock from inside his glass house.

Meanwhile, his campaign sent out an email to this survey, titled "TRUMP Debate Preparation Survey". Why yes, that is on gop.com. Anyhow, it includes such questions as:
"Should Trump criticize Hillary for praising ObamaCare, which is now projected to once again raise premiums all across the country?"
"Should Trump criticize the Clinton Foundation’s corruption, and urge the Clintons to shut it down and return all foreign donations?"
"Should Trump force Hillary to answer questions about her email scandal that the press still won’t ask?"

Now anyone with even a smidgen of knowledge on the subject knows these are 100% leading questions, but it's the Republicans and they don't believe in science. But look at how they're phrased. Look who the questions are blaming.

This is on gop.com

Oh by the way, since Trump seems to think so highly of internet polls, maybe we should all take it? I mean, they must be good, Trump seems to like them? Let's everyone take this survey. Come on! Let's help Trump win every poll!

[Edge-]

So they're crowdsourcing his debate prep?

That's a bold strategy, Cotton. Let's see if it pays off for him.

[DeadmanWalking]

Wouldn't the old lady in question most likely say you <kids, children, hoodlums, midget man-devils>, or something of that nature?

Most people don't, and shouldn't use you as a plural when it's meant to be singular unless denoted by a group of people following the you.

Well yeah, if someone can speak and think in proper english they wouldn't try to use 'you' as a plural, but obviously this isn't the case or else there wouldn't be an argument that has lasted this long.

[DeadmanWalking]

The only person who thinks that Donald Trump didn't miss opportunities at the debate is...Donald Trump.

"I got everything I wanted to say. I got it out, other than the transgressions of Bill," said Trump, congratulating himself for not throwing a rock from inside his glass house.

Meanwhile, his campaign sent out an email to this survey, titled "TRUMP Debate Preparation Survey". Why yes, that is on gop.com. Anyhow, it includes such questions as:
"Should Trump criticize Hillary for praising ObamaCare, which is now projected to once again raise premiums all across the country?"
"Should Trump criticize the Clinton Foundation’s corruption, and urge the Clintons to shut it down and return all foreign donations?"
"Should Trump force Hillary to answer questions about her email scandal that the press still won’t ask?"

Now anyone with even a smidgen of knowledge on the subject knows these are 100% leading questions, but it's the Republicans and they don't believe in science. But look at how they're phrased. Look who the questions are blaming.

This is on gop.com

Oh by the way, since Trump seems to think so highly of internet polls, maybe we should all take it? I mean, they must be good, Trump seems to like them? Let's everyone take this survey. Come on! Let's help Trump win every poll!

Well you know they expected failure when several Republican pundits had moments after the debate, word for word talking point, "Well of course she was practiced, she stayed inside practicing for several days while he was out meeting and shaking hands of real americans!" in such a way as to frame 'winging it' as a favorable behavior of a future president and preparing for debates as unamerican and dispicable. This is how stupidity breeds so quickly.

[Breccia]

By the way, big surprise, if you complete the gop.com poll it takes you directly to donate.donaldjtrump.com

And you better fucking believe I took that survey several times! It's the Trump way.

[DeadmanWalking]

The funny thing is, I think the "transgressions of Bill" part is kind of dumb anyway. She was the victim (being cheated on), but worked through it and saved the marriage.

Did he want her to file for divorce? Does he think she was in on him cheating? What is the point of bringing it up? During the whole thing in the 90's, most did not care that he got head. So it can't be that.

I think if he did bring it up, it would have just made him look worse to the undecided voters that the debates are really supposed to sway. Most people that are either for Trump or Hillary, or against them are going to remain where they are.

You are trying to get the undecided vote... which tends to be moderate.

Conservative women do not react well to trotting out a mistress to a debate to rattle a cheated on wife anymore than they will react well to blaming the wife for the cheating of the husband. I am sure that his campaign nixed the Jennifer Flowers appearance because of this.

[Lenonis]

The funny thing is, I think the "transgressions of Bill" part is kind of dumb anyway. She was the victim (being cheated on), but worked through it and saved the marriage.

You only scratched the surface -- if he brings up Bill's transgressions then Hillary is free to point out that not only did Trump divorce twice but he has cheated on his previous wives in very public fashion. That exchange is not going to make Trump look good, especially with the religious conservative base of his.

[Edge-]

especially with the religious conservative base of his.

They're convinced he's god's "chosen one" or something, that's currently every argument I've heard from folks in the religious right to rationalize their support for him despite the fact that he embodies damn near everything the "moral majority" finds abhorrent.

[Edge-]

or even Kasich, who in my opinion was probably the best candidate on that stage (even though I did not agree with him on many things), it is kind of baffling.

Despite my gripes with Kasich's stances on a number of social issues and some of his policies, he's the only GOP candidate during the primary that I thought wasn't a complete joke. Hell, if he was running against Hillary I'd legitimately consider voting for him depending on where all of his final positions and policies shaked out.

But yeah, Trump is literally the antithesis of the teachings of the New Testament, but that's a whole other ball of wax and a topic that's not allowed for discussion in these forums. So I'll leave it at that.

[DeadmanWalking]

That's the part I don't get either.

A person that does not apologize, has a humongous ego, seems to lack any empathy/compassion, seems to be really bad about doing any kind of charity, does not seem actually know anything about the bible, etc...

How they went with him and not someone like Cruz, or Santorum, or even Kasich, who in my opinion was probably the best candidate on that stage (even though I did not agree with him on many things), it is kind of baffling.

They wanted Republican politicians to go to washington and deny Democrats anything they wanted and get everything Republican voters wanted with no negotiations and when that is impossible due to the reality of not being in control of all 3 branches of government they decided that the problem was corrupt politicians. They had such a huge hard on for a non-politician and Trump happened to be famous from his towers and reality TV show, someone they liked. The previous election they really wanted Herman Cain at first but his sexual indiscretions forced him out and this time, indescretions be damned they were going to get a non-politician come hell or high water.
Donald just happened to be in the right place at the right time. Cruz and any other politician never had a chance in the current form of the Republican voters.

[Breccia]

Despite my gripes with Kasich's stances on a number of social issues and some of his policies, he's the only GOP candidate during the primary that I thought wasn't a complete joke.

I'll double down on this: he wasn't a joke at all. He's sitting at home, laughing and shaking his head, at what his own party has done to itself.

If he runs in 2020 under the banner "I TOLD YOU SO" I will quit my job and work for his campaign. You heard it here first.