First presidential debate - September 26: Trump vs Hillary

[TZucchini]

As a non american I have a question... what's the alignment of the host?

Trump called him a Democrat. But Lester Holt is a registered Republican.

[Kujako]

As a non american I have a question... what's the alignment of the host?

Hopefully chaotic neutral?

[LaserSharkDFB]

As a non american I have a question... what's the alignment of the host?

Here's the basics about him.

[Breccia]

Cuban said he would have run as Trump's VP.

You know, if memory serves, the Founding Fathers had it so runner up was Vice President. I'm starting to wonder if that would be a good idea -- not using this election as an example, just in general.

- - - Updated - - -

Hopefully chaotic neutral?

Newscasters are prohibited from being Chaotic in 5th Edition. I know, the 4th Ed rules made a mess of things.

[DocSavageFan]

Trump called him a Democrat. But Lester Holt is a registered Republican.

Lie #1 and the debate hasn't even started yet! lol

Holt seems like a solid choice to me.

[Breccia]

Trump called him a Democrat. But Lester Holt is a registered Republican.

Holt is African American. And yes, I am implying something but not outright saying it.

[Theodarzna]

I live mere hours form the border, so nowhere close to Palo Alto or NYC or any similar place. Everything is fine and has been fine. Up until recently I lived in an area that was majority latino/arab (which incidentally is why I always laughed at people on message boards telling me to live with them and see what it was like; I did and it's great!).

But that aside, there's a difference between feeling that something is true and having that something actually be true. There's definitely a real feeling of Christian oppression, when the reality is that we're starting to end their oppression of others. Perception does not always equal reality. And that's why Trump's campaign is largely successful: people feel that these problems are bigger than they really are, and he's simply tapping into that.

The majority of Trump's base are people whom have not seen a pay raise in some 30-40 years. And lest you say "But the Democrats care!" I respond only with "Which party gave us NAFTA? Which party gave us TPP?"

[Garnier Fructis]

The majority of Trump's base are people whom have not seen a pay raise in some 30-40 years. And lest you say "But the Democrats care!" I respond only with "Which party gave us NAFTA? Which party gave us TPP?"

Don't forget that both of those enjoy wide bipartisan support in Congress. And his base is non-college educated whites, which is also the demographic that is politically against min wage increases and entitlements. They did this to themselves.

[Theodarzna]

Don't forget that both of those enjoy wide bipartisan support in Congress. And his base is non-college educated whites, which is also the demographic that is politically against min wage increases and entitlements. They did this to themselves.

Most of them want jobs primarily. But let us ask, why have the democrats supported these ruinous trade policies?

[Grapemask]

Clinton can't win the debate. She won't even give a good performance. She'll be painful to watch. I say these things as someone who genuinely wants her to win the election, because she's just that terrible at debates.

We saw it over and over with the Bernie Sanders debates, and we saw it with what should have been her crowning speech at the DNC. She's a wooden public speaker; she can't say five words without sounding like Ben Stein reading an IRS form.

But worse is the way she chooses to debate. It's very clear that she and her team come up with zingers and one-liners for crowd reactions, and she largely ignores the questions she's asked so that she can dole out the lines she's practiced. There was so much second hand embarrassment watching her ignore questions on policy and then say something totally random about veterans just so that she could get a 15 second applause. She made me actively dislike her with those debates.

[Daerio]

This debate would have been a great opportunity for 3rd party to pick up some votes since the two main candidates are total dogshit.

The "great deciders" can't let something like that happen.

[cubby]

The first 1v1 between Trump and Hillary is almost upon us!
Will you be watching it live and what are your expectations about the debate itself? (Actual debate about the candidates can be done in the two megathreads)

I will stay up to watch it live (night time here) and I expect maximum entertainment value! Might even turn out to be more of a Comedy Central roast than an actual debate, but truth be told ... that's why I am so exited about it

I expect Hillary to trounce Trump. He will eventually lose his cool during the debate (see Bush in 2004 debate) and Hillary will capitalize. She will remain cool and calm (see Benghazi 11 hour testimony), and hopefully keep her yell voice under control.

Trump could come out of the fuzzy detail woodwork and actually start laying out policy plans (which he has yet to do personally, live). That is the only way Trump could throw Hillary off balance - but I would be surprised if Hillary's team hasn't prepped her for Trump actually saying something of substance. Her debate prep should be outstanding. Trump's is "supposed" to be horrible, but if I was on his debate/policy/media team, that is exactly the story I would leak while actually prepping him out the wazzo.

[Garnier Fructis]

Most of them want jobs primarily. But let us ask, why have the democrats supported these ruinous trade policies?

One potential reason is that young people and hispanics are more likely to support free trade policies and actually view NAFTA as a good thing, which happen to be some of the Democrats' most important demographics.

[Deleted]

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

[Breccia]

Most of them want jobs primarily. But let us ask, why have the democrats supported these ruinous trade policies?

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.

[cubby]

You know, if memory serves, the Founding Fathers had it so runner up was Vice President. I'm starting to wonder if that would be a good idea -- not using this election as an example, just in general.

Obama/McCain would have been fantastic (pre-Trump/Palin McCain).

- - - Updated - - -

Lie #1 and the debate hasn't even started yet! lol

Holt seems like a solid choice to me.

I will be interesting to see if he will be fact checking the candidates - and I do mean both candidates. Although we know what the result will be - if Trump can't lie, he won't be able to answer a question.

[Breccia]

But worse is the way she chooses to debate. It's very clear that she and her team come up with zingers and one-liners for crowd reactions, and she largely ignores the questions she's asked so that she can dole out the lines she's practiced.

I agree with most of what you said, but not this. The debate format was announced ahead of time, and this strategy doesn't sound like it'll fit. Clinton's team is prepared, maybe overprepared (screw you red underline, that is too a word) but will be extra careful to not upset the moderators -- they'll leave that to Trump, probably post-Lauer to his detriment.

- - - Updated - - -

Obama/McCain would have been fantastic

Hell yes, that would have been fantastic.

- - - Updated - - -

I will be interesting to see if he will be fact checking the candidates - and I do mean both candidates.

Holt hasn't been at work since Tuesday. He's prepping. It should not take him three days to prep, but fail to fact-check.

[TZucchini]

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?"

[Narwal]

I think Hillary has a lot to lose here. 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. Of course the media and left want you to believe that him messing up "this time" will for sure end him, just like all his blunders before at the time were his end. Hillary has never been pressed on her scandals in these debates. The emails are going to come up, Trump will make sure it gets brought up. He may be able to bait her into making those controversies a significant portion of her speaking. Even if she's explaining them away well, it is a loss for her to even have to talk about them.

[cubby]

I sincerely hope that Trump will finally be called out, publicly, on all his lies and bullshit. The media has started to really drill down his lies - four newspapers this weekend came out with articles finally calling him out. My favorite quote:

"Clinton has made her share of questionable claims," the Post said, but Trump "at times seems uniquely undeterred by facts."

Full article: Here

The Washington Post was apparently the nicest of the four media outlets when labeling Trump's "misstatements" - they were the only ones not to use the word "lie".