First presidential debate - September 26: Trump vs Hillary

[Merkava]

So, more Democrats voted no than voted yes, but they have more responsibility. Uh-huh. You do know that 'bipartisan' doesn't mean 'everyone on both parties agree', of course, so it's not clear why you've chosen this small and petty hill to die on. Your argument is pedantic for the sake of pedantry and it's pointless.

It should be easy to understand. There were more Democrats. They had more votes. Even if every Republican voted yes, they still wouldn't been able to pass it without Democrats voting yes, and a Democratic President signing it.

Like I told Breccia, you seem to want to blame the minority party for voting yes, without blaming the majority party for not voting no. That makes no sense.

- - - Updated - - -

Oh I understand the point you are arguing -- but I don't even know why it's a topic of discussion at all. I can't really see a framework where you can adequately argue that the previous trade deals were the fault of one party or the other.

Not unlike now where there is some definite shifts in how the parties are viewing TPP -- and the splinters within each party on the subject.

Is there an agenda or list of topics published about the debate or is it going to be a surprise?

I don't know why it's a topic either.

I don't know. Here's what I was able to find

DEBATE ISSUES & FORMAT: The topics "America's Direction," "Achieving Prosperity" and "Securing America" will be covered in six 15-minute segments. Each candidate will start the topic discussion with a two minute speech, after which they'll debate back and forth on the topic.

Seems pretty general.

[Lenonis]

Trump is far less likely to start a war, but if he does it will literally be world war 3 so run for the fucking hills.

One thing that I haven't really seen talked about much is that Trump said he's clean house with the generals -- which if he actually could and did may really change how the US perceives war and our appetite to get involved. Kind of hard to say what it would turn into, but given his rhetoric and bombastic nature I don't think the change would be for the better.

- - - Updated - - -

Seems pretty general.

Thanks -- if I had to guess I'd say the first is social issues, the second economic, and third foreign policy.

[Blur4stuff]

i get the feeling Trump is going to do the usual and bullshit his way through the debate, lie, and not be called out on any of it by lester holt

hopefully he proves me wrong

[Narwal]

The fact that you can even say this demonstrates everything wrong with the current situation. Trump could act like an idiot -- advocating policies that can't be done and saying things that are objectively false -- and still not lose, because he's expected to look like an idiot. That's how low the bar has been set.

When you're backing a candidate that's expected to say and do stupid things, most specifically stupid things about important matters of national policy that actually matter, you should know you done goofed.

It says a lot about Hillary, don't ya think?

[LaserSharkDFB]

It should be easy to understand. There were more Democrats. They had more votes. Even if every Republican voted yes, they still wouldn't been able to pass it without Democrats voting yes, and a Democratic President signing it.

Like I told Breccia, you seem to want to blame the minority party for voting yes, without blaming the majority party for not voting no. That makes no sense.

No, you're lying about my position and you've been lying about his. Both parties are to blame; that's what bipartisan means. You seem to want to say we're not blaming the left at all, but that's self-evidently not the case. Even if your point is 'they're both guilty, but Democrats are more guilty', then your argument is, again, pedantic and pointless.

- - - Updated - - -

It says a lot about Hillary, don't ya think?

Says a lot about the people that support Trump, too.

[Thelin]

Sounds dangerous. I wonder how many people he knows that conviniently back up his claims.

I hope moderators will be tough on the both of them; asking the who's, when's and how's. The shit-talking in this campaign has gone overboard.

If Holt doesn't fact check both of them live I'll be a super pissed. A Good moderator would do that, give both candidates equal time to respond and to keep order. Hell to be honest both candidates should not be aware of the questions before hand they should be asked on the fly. Until debates actually do that its all a bunch of preplanned BS.

[Merkava]

No, you're lying about my position and you've been lying about his. Both parties are to blame; that's what bipartisan means. You seem to want to say we're not blaming the left at all, but that's self-evidently not the case. Even if your point is 'they're both guilty, but Democrats are more guilty', then your argument is, again, pedantic and pointless.

I don't know why it's so hard to read the thread. You even quoted me on what I'm about to show you.

You seem to want to say we're not blaming the left at all.

Breccia seemed to be saying that both sides were equally to blame for it's passing.

Clearly, my assessment of Breccia's position was that he was blaming both sides equally. Does that make sense to you now?

And I don't know why you declare the concept of shared but unequal responsibility to be pedantic and pointless. Would you have said the same about the decision to invade Iraq?

Listen, even if I accepted that Republicans in Congress who voted yes shared identical responsibility with Democrats in Congress who failed to vote no, the bill was championed and signed into law by a Democratic President. Evidently, that doesn't mean anything though, does it?

[Narwal]

I can see people not learning much about Hilary - but Trump could get his collective ass kicked, depending on if he holds his temper and if the moderator is fact-checking. They could learn a lot about what a lying sack of shit he really is.

Moderators don't fact check, it's not the job of a moderator. It's Hillary's job as a debater to counter-point where Trump is wrong or lying (keep in mind it's not a lie if he believes it so) by stating facts/examples/opinions contradictory.

For instance, if Trump said "Hillary Clinton wants to raise taxes on the middle class", she could counter-point with what her plan is, how it doesn't affect the middle class, and then ask Trump to site specific policy or quotes to assert what he has claimed. This is how you WIN a debate. The other person saying something blatantly wrong or a lie, should make it very easy for you to win the debate. Just put out your facts to prove it so. If you don't have the ability to do so, then maybe it's not wrong. You don't have a 3rd party interjecting after each answer grading the responses. Do you want a Fox News Anchor moderating a debate calling everything a Democrat candidate says wrong based on citations of Fox News stories?

[Darklurker]

Racist, Sexist, Xenophobe, Islamaphobe, Homophobe... which buzzwords am I missing?

So are we doing a social justice bingo?

[DocSavageFan]

Just because his support for the war was specific but not enthusiastic, he is no less of a liar when he said he was always against it.

The result of which is, he was just as fooled by the faulty intelligence as everyone else who voted for the war, then changed their mind. His also being for the war removes his ability to criticize Clinton for being for the war. It is a "glass houses" kind of thing.

And again, Clinton never denied her vote, and she would eventually apologize for it. Um, kinda. Trump flat-out lied about what he said on the record. So, regardless of their stances on the war (which, again, appear to be the same), Trump straight-up denied reality, and that's par for the course.

Oh, and the war was a resounding fucking mistake. I hope we learn something from that.

And how do you feel about Libya (aka Hillary's War) and her propagating the lie of impending genocide to obtain Congressional approval?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dan-ko...b_9054182.html

And her lies about the failed State she helped to create?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/riley-...b_9682562.html

But hey...Trump may have technically lied by a week or two about supporting the Iraq War...OMG! Your ilk are a hoot!

[TZucchini]

When asked 6 months before the war on 9/11, Sterns asked Trump if he supported it and he said " I guess so....".

You realize that "I guess so" means "yes". It may be a hesitant "yes", but it's a "yes" nonetheless. He simply could have so, "No, I don't think so."

When asked 2-3 months before the war, during a Neil Cavuto interview Trump said...

The question Cavuto asks isn't about his support for the war. It's whether the war is more important than the economy. And Trump doesn't reject the war in this quote. "He has either got to do something or not do something." No shit Donald, thanks for the insight.

And then a week after the war started he said...

Actually, that was a full year after the war took place. This is the quote from Esquire.


But Trump has claimed he was against the war before it started. We have one documented case of someone asking him if he was in favor of the war before it started, and he answered affirmatively.

Not sure why pointing this out makes me look like a partisan hack. I wouldn't hold his support for the war against him. I supported the war at the outset as well.

[Lenonis]

Moderators don't fact check, it's not the job of a moderator. It's Hillary's job as a debater to counter-point where Trump is wrong or lying (keep in mind it's not a lie if he believes it so) by stating facts/examples/opinions contradictory.

There is a difference between defending your position or clarifying details on your responses and fact checking. The main issue with not having moderators fact check is that candidates don't get to continually respond to their opponent, so at some point you are going to have a concluding statement issued that ends that topic and they move on. The other candidate doesn't get to fact check. Unless, of course, you have a free-for-all where people just get to jump in and interject whenever. But that's not a debate at that point.

I don't think it's good policy to say that moderators shouldn't fact check. If there are concerns about bias then that is what should be address...but we shouldn't argue for a platform in which a candidate can lie unchallenged in any scenario.

[Narwal]

Says a lot about the people that support Trump, too.

I agree, kind of... It says something about the Trump die-hards who got him into the nomination. However, you can't blame everyone siding with Trump at this point. You can't really blame those in the middle who are without a party affiliation for the choice that's been given to them. Both of these choices are bad.

Likewise, Democrats have shown their hand in fully catering to the minority population, often at the price of demonizing all whites. Whites are still a majority in this country, 70% last I heard. Democrats have been able to create a culture in which some whites feel self-loathing and self-guilt. Democrats have to work hard to keep enough whites feeling that self-guilt in order to stay in power. Once they push that envelope too far, they're going to lose their share of the white vote, and that's already happening today. Realistically, the middle class has been losing the most, and that's majority white. The poor have nothing to lose, and the rich are always going to be rich. We hear again and again how the middle-class is going to get help in some way, but all that happens is more government programs to support the poor.

[BrerBear]

Moderators don't fact check, it's not the job of a moderator. It's Hillary's job as a debater to counter-point where Trump is wrong or lying (keep in mind it's not a lie if he believes it so) by stating facts/examples/opinions contradictory.

Apparently this is the depth to which we've now sunk.
If the guy who gets everything wrong believes it to be true, it's not a lie.
Problem is, Trump's entire shtick is just to state what he wants to be true as fact, actual truth be damned.

[Deleted]

Ok when is this and where can I watch it live?

[Reeve]

You know what? I'll take that bet.

I can't honestly believe that Trump's campaign staff doesn't know about this fact check minefield waiting for him. Conway's had a rough...um...entire term, but she's not stupid. An Ailes might be a sexist sonofabitch but he knows TV. No way will they let him wander out there and wing it, not after the Clinton campaign has cited Politifact about a hundred times in the last week...I'm honestly not even sure that's exaggeration. Instead, I think you'll see him on the debate variant of a choke chain. He'll be far less energetic, far less enthusiastic, because he'll be sticking to a smaller, weaker portion of his playbook.

Basically, I am running out of options to say "Trump can't possibly be that stupid". This is arguably his last chance to prove that.

Fact checking won't matter unless it's done in real time. No one has paid any attention to after-the-fact fact checking for this whole campaign thus far, or Trump wouldn't be the one people think "tells it like it is," while they think Clinton "is a crooked liar."

Also, I don't think Trump will "stick to what he knows" in order to avoid fact check hell, because he doesn't honestly know much. He's bluster without substance, and if he takes away the bluster, it'll just be painfully obvious to everyone how little substance he has to offer when he's on stage with someone who actually has 20 years of experience in the trenches.

[Lenonis]

Apparently this is the depth to which we've now sunk.
If the guy who gets everything wrong believes it to be true, it's not a lie.
Problem is, Trump's entire shtick is just to state what he wants to be true as fact, actual truth be damned.

Well, technically it's true -- if someone honestly believes something to be true that isn't -- that's not a lie, that's just being wrong.

Of course you then have to prove that Trump honestly believed what he said -- which is a near impossible task since I'm not sure Trump even knows what he believes on any given day. I think a lot of his stances are just calculated based on what he thinks is best and he doesn't care one way or the other in actuality.

But whether a candidate is lying or just flat out wrong -- either way isn't exactly a glowing endorsement.

[Garnier Fructis]

Well, technically it's true -- if someone honestly believes something to be true that isn't -- that's not a lie, that's just being wrong.

Of course you then have to prove that Trump honestly believed what he said -- which is a near impossible task since I'm not sure Trump even knows what he believes on any given day. I think a lot of his stances are just calculated based on what he thinks is best and he doesn't care one way or the other in actuality.

But whether a candidate is lying or just flat out wrong -- either way isn't exactly a glowing endorsement.

Some people who aren't really paying attention can genuinely believe contradictory opinions, so it's possible that Trump really does believe everything he says.

[Narwal]

There is a difference between defending your position or clarifying details on your responses and fact checking. The main issue with not having moderators fact check is that candidates don't get to continually respond to their opponent, so at some point you are going to have a concluding statement issued that ends that topic and they move on. The other candidate doesn't get to fact check. Unless, of course, you have a free-for-all where people just get to jump in and interject whenever. But that's not a debate at that point.

I don't think it's good policy to say that moderators shouldn't fact check. If there are concerns about bias then that is what should be address...but we shouldn't argue for a platform in which a candidate can lie unchallenged in any scenario.

How do you address bias in a moderator? If you have a fact checker who is biased, and 100 million people view the debate, who are assuming the fact checker is always right... even if after the fact you challenge what the "fact-checker" said, it's already been put into the heads of 100 million viewers. This is how dirty politics and lying work. Get the lie out while everyone is listening/watching.. correct yourself and apologize on the back page of the Sioux City Journal Sunday news paper that no one reads 3 weeks later because you were found to be wrong.

[LaserSharkDFB]

Moderators don't fact check, it's not the job of a moderator. It's Hillary's job as a debater to counter-point where Trump is wrong or lying (keep in mind it's not a lie if he believes it so) by stating facts/examples/opinions contradictory.

Here's the thing, though. If Trump tells nothing but lies or falsehoods - as seems likely - Clinton would have to spend all her time refuting those lies. How is that fair?