First presidential debate - September 26: Trump vs Hillary

[Breccia]

We know Trump can come out looking like an idiot, but he's done it plenty of times before, people expect it. I don't think that necessarily ends him.

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.

- - - Updated - - -

I think we'll see a lot of graphics and sound bytes in tonight's debate. Much easier and much more effective than fact checking.

[Plays a video of Trump saying he supports the Iraq War]

"So, Mr. Trump, why did you, just a few weeks ago with Matt Lauer, say you didn't support the war?"

They could literally do this for 90 minutes straight. At only 3 minutes per False/Pants on Fire, Trump would need four hours to defend himself.

[Thelin]

Drinking game;

take a sip every time trump says the phrase "Great Again"
Take a gulp every time trump says the phrase "Win so much/Win again"

you'll be shitfaced in about 30 minutes.

[May90]

That will be hilarious. I won't be watching it live; might watch it on Youtube on the weekend. Too bad I don't like popcorn...

[Lenonis]

Trump will run over Hillary with ease i hope she coughs on stage and has to be removed

1) There is no reason to believe Trump will run over Hillary -- she has a lot of experience debating and being in hostile environments.
2) If she was sick enough that she felt she couldn't make it, she'd cancel. That would be less bad than having to leave the debate halfway through.
3) If this is the best you got your candidate is in real trouble.

[cubby]

Drinking game;

take a sip every time trump says the phrase "Great Again"
Take a gulp every time trump says the phrase "Win so much/Win again"

you'll be shitfaced in about 30 minutes.

Add a sip for every time he repeats a word consecutively ("really, really great again"). You won't make it past his opening statement.

[Theodarzna]

This is a pretty stupid question to ask while quoting the exact line "both of those enjoy wide bipartisan support in Congress".

EDIT: Also,

"Long-Standing Support for Free Trade with Mexico. Ronald Reagan first proposed a free trade agreement between the U.S. and Mexico in his 1980 presidential campaign. Since that time, The Heritage Foundation is proud of the role it has played in articulating President Reagan's vision of free trade in Latin America and around the world. Since the mid-1980s, Heritage analysts have been stressing that a free trade agreement with Mexico not only will stimulate economic growth in the U.S., but will make Mexico a more stable and prosperous country. Heritage has published over three dozen studies stressing the benefits of free trade in North America."

http://www.heritage.org/research/rep...rade-agreement

That's right: I just quoted the Heritage Foundation as saying Reagan's policies led to NAFTA. If you know who the Heritage Foundation is, you'd know why I'm pointing this out.

Which president put NAFTA through? Which president is trying to put TPP through?

Heck which president promised to renegotiate NAFTA, and promised to oppose various other trade policies?

[Poopymonster]

Drinking game;

take a sip every time trump says the phrase "Great Again"
Take a gulp every time trump says the phrase "Win so much/Win again"

you'll be shitfaced in about 30 minutes.

My liver just went into convulsions even thinking about this.

[Breccia]

Which president put NAFTA through?

You really seem attached to the idea that only Democrats like NAFTA. In other words, you're being willfully ignorant.

https://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/103-1993/h575

More House Democrats voted against NAFTA than for it, 102-158.

More House Republicans voted for NAFTA than against it, 132-43.

https://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/103-1993/s395

More Senate Democrats voted against NAFTA than for it, 27-28.

More Senate Republicans voted for NAFTA than against it, 34-10.

Not only did NAFTA see bipartisan support, but the support was far more proportionally Red than Blue.

Your attempts to blame the Democrats for NAFTA, without mentioning the Republicans (including Reagan) were far more interested, is somewhere between misleading and factually wrong.

EDIT: Hey, is that George H W Bush signing NAFTA? Because I think it is! Oh, and he gave a speech about it too! Sounds like he likes it!

[Deleted]

For us Finns on these forums, in case someone hadn't noticed yet, the debate will be broadcast live on the Finnish YLE TV1, and also on the YLE news website here: http://yle.fi/uutiset/3-9192212

The Finnish broadcast starts at 03:50 our time, and the debate itself at 04:00.

[TwoNineMarine]

It'll be two old fucks calling each other old fucks. Nothing of any substance will come out in this debate.

No actual policy plans, no definitive approach to anything, no nothing.

It'll be a complete waste of time when it comes down learning anything of value.

But it will be funny.

[Merkava]

You really seem attached to the idea that only Democrats like NAFTA. In other words, you're being willfully ignorant.

https://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/103-1993/h575

More House Democrats voted against NAFTA than for it, 102-158.

More House Republicans voted for NAFTA than against it, 132-43.

https://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/103-1993/s395

More Senate Democrats voted against NAFTA than for it, 27-28.

More Senate Republicans voted for NAFTA than against it, 34-10.

Not only did NAFTA see bipartisan support, but the support was far more proportionally Red than Blue.

Your attempts to blame the Democrats for NAFTA, without mentioning the Republicans (including Reagan) were far more interested, is somewhere between misleading and factually wrong.

EDIT: Hey, is that George H W Bush signing NAFTA? Because I think it is! Oh, and he gave a speech about it too! Sounds like he likes it!

Democrats had control of both houses and a Democratic President signed it. I think they have a little more of the blame in this case.

[Sinyc]

Republican voters are afraid of Islam and Mexicans, push anti-gay legislation and you have your own little race war running right now with BLM.

They aren't afraid of them, they just don't like illegals coming into the country. They push anti-gay because some books tells them to. The left is just as much to blame, if not more, for BLM and any racial division. It keeps the left elected in cities if they push a race issue.

For clarification: I am not a conservative voter in any way shape or form. I absolutely hate Trump and Clinton. So please don't resort to name-calling against me.

[Breccia]

Democrats had control of both houses and a Democratic President signed it. I think they have a little more of the blame in this case.

Your opinion on the subject is directly contradicted by the votes cast. Also, the fact that it was mentioned by Reagan first, signed by Bush 41 second, then Clinton third to make it official, only speaks to its bipartisan support -- something Theo continues to ignore.

[cubby]

It'll be two old fucks calling each other old fucks. Nothing of any substance will come out in this debate.

No actual policy plans, no definitive approach to anything, no nothing.

It'll be a complete waste of time when it comes down learning anything of value.

But it will be funny.

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.

[Merkava]

Your opinion on the subject is directly contradicted by the votes cast. Also, the fact that it was mentioned by Reagan first, signed by Bush 41 second, then Clinton third to make it official, only speaks to its bipartisan support -- something Theo continues to ignore.

The votes cast don't contradict the statement that Democrats had control of both houses and the Presidency. And Bush didn't sign the bill, Bush signed the initial version of the treaty which then had to be submitted to Congress after he lost.

Of course it had bi-partisan support. I didn't say that it didn't. Maybe Theo said it didn't. He'd be incorrect if that's what he said. I'm saying Democrats in Congress and Clinton could have stopped it if they wanted to. They were holding the leash, so to speak.

[cubby]

Your opinion on the subject is directly contradicted by the votes cast. Also, the fact that it was mentioned by Reagan first, signed by Bush 41 second, then Clinton third to make it official, only speaks to its bipartisan support -- something Theo continues to ignore.

Interesting - you both seem to be right. Bush signed the agreement, and Clinton signed what I believe is called the implementation legislation.

- - - Updated - - -

Democrats had control of both houses and a Democratic President signed it. I think they have a little more of the blame in this case.

If the Dems wanted to stop it, they could have - regardless of the vote tally. Which is tacit support of the legislation, even if the vote count has more Reds than blues.

[Deleted]

I just cant help but enjoy that picture of The Donald.

[Merkava]

Interesting - you both seem to be right. Bush signed the agreement, and Clinton signed what I believe is called the implementation legislation.

- - - Updated - - -



If the Dems wanted to stop it, they could have - regardless of the vote tally. Which is tacit support of the legislation, even if the vote count has more Reds than blues.

What Bush signed was ceremonial. Without ratification by Congress and a Presidential signature it wouldn't have gone into effect.

[Breccia]

The votes cast don't contradict the statement that Democrats had control of both houses and the Presidency.

In addition to being unable to read, you have just proven you can't count either.

More Republicans voted yes than Democrats.
More Democrats voted no than Republicans.

There is no factual way you can back your statement. You are just flat-out wrong.

And Bush didn't sign the bill, Bush signed the initial version of the treaty which then had to be submitted to Congress after he lost.

Whether or not it was symbolic is questionable. Whether or not it showed further Republican support, by the current President, is not. Bush touted it, then signed it -- even if the signature meant nothing legally, which is debatable (because I don't know) but moot (because Clinton signed it regardless).

Theo was pushing quite adamantly that the Democrats were somehow to blame despite actual facts citing a mix of bipartisan support (bad for Theo's point) or actual Republican heavily favoring it while Democrats were majority against it (worse for Theo's point). It looks like you're intentionally trying to support the losing side, and saying things which are the opposite of what happened as reference. Back out while you can.

[PACOX]

It's Clinton's to lose, let's see if she can get it done. She doesn't have the luxury of doing bad in this one and great in the next. Either she knocks out a win here or the election becomes questionable.