First presidential debate - September 26: Trump vs Hillary

[apeiron1234]

Most people on this site will say Clinton "destroyed" Trump. Over a year leading to this debate mostly everyone and even Trump supporters claimed that she would destroy him in these debates. I really think it's a tie and a to be continued...

There were so many issues that Trump could have hit Hillary with but basically didn't. Another thing too about his business dealings he could have hit back with politicians like her are the reason he can do what he did. laws ect.

There's a lot more but I think he failed on using time wisely.(Telling everybody about your endorsements doesn't do much.)

Anyways before someone decides to check my privilege don't forget to stop and frisk me first.

[Bakis]

Maybe Trump can show up tempered and prepared the next time so he dont get roflstomped by an ill-carismatic person like Clinton :P

[TZucchini]

Wow.

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

These internet polls might actually be on to something. No, Trump didn't win the debate by any objective measurement. In fact he did much worse than most people expected.

I do believe they highlight the enthusiasm gap, though. Trumps voters are more enthusiastic about voting for him. And that could be a real problem for Hillary in November. Then again, it didn't help Bernie much.

[Breccia]

These internet polls might actually be on to something. No, Trump didn't win the debate by any objective measurement. In fact he did much worse than most people expected.

It's hard to trust a poll you can vote in twice in a row without refreshing your browser. I'm more interested in polls conducted the "standard" way -- journalists asking questions to actual people, not people who want to express their opinion coming to the source. What we have, a "voluntary sample", is better than nothing, but not as reflective of the population as simple random samples.

[NED funded]

This is great..

[Daelak]

Most people on this site will say Clinton "destroyed" Trump. Over a year leading to this debate mostly everyone and even Trump supporters claimed that she would destroy him in these debates. I really think it's a tie and a to be continued...

There were so many issues that Trump could have hit Hillary with but basically didn't. Another thing too about his business dealings he could have hit back with politicians like her are the reason he can do what he did. laws ect.

There's a lot more but I think he failed on using time wisely.(Telling everybody about your endorsements doesn't do much.)

Anyways before someone decides to check my privilege don't forget to stop and frisk me first.

Because a debate isn't about 'hitting' anyone or anything. Just answer the fucking questions within your allotted time and don't start speaking in vague platitudes about your fucking golf resort in Palm Beach County Florida.

[Narwal]

These internet polls might actually be on to something. No, Trump didn't win the debate by any objective measurement. In fact he did much worse than most people expected.

I do believe they highlight the enthusiasm gap, though. Trumps voters are more enthusiastic about voting for him. And that could be a real problem for Hillary in November. Then again, it didn't help Bernie much.

He did better than I thought he would. The media prior to this debate said it was important that all media judge the debate scoring on the two candidates on the same scale. Why would they say that? Because the public doesn't score them on the same scale. What this says to me is that the media, and the public, will be scoring this debate differently. As the media, based on how they're scoring it they may say Hillary won. In general public, I think there were parts of this debate where Trump looked Presidential. I didn't think he would ever look like that.

I particularly felt this way when he brought up the law and order discussion. He went into the weeds of truth, that the difficulty in many of these inner city black neighborhoods is that you can get shot just walking down the street on any given day. Clinton refuted with "omg that's so racist, these black neighborhoods aren't dangerous how can you say that?". All Trump has to say to the black community is, "If you believe your neighborhoods are safe, if you believe you can self police all of the gang and gun violence out of your community, then vote for Hillary Clinton. Her plan is to continue on with more of the same. You can expect more of the same of the last 8 years."

[Daelak]

He did better than I thought he would. The media prior to this debate said it was important that all media judge the debate scoring on the two candidates on the same scale. Why would they say that? Because the public doesn't score them on the same scale. What this says to me is that the media, and the public, will be scoring this debate differently. As the media, based on how they're scoring it they may say Hillary won. In general public, I think there were parts of this debate where Trump looked Presidential. I didn't think he would ever look like that.

I particularly felt this way when he brought up the law and order discussion. He went into the weeds of truth, that the difficulty in many of these inner city black neighborhoods is that you can get shot just walking down the street on any given day. Clinton refuted with "omg that's so racist, these black neighborhoods aren't dangerous how can you say that?". All Trump has to say to the black community is, "If you believe your neighborhoods are safe, if you believe you can self police all of the gang and gun violence out of your community, then vote for Hillary Clinton. Her plan is to continue on with more of the same. You can expect more of the same of the last 8 years."

No he didn't. He didn't say anything of substance and kept going off topic and going over his allotted time. There was no semblance of presidential temperament at any point during that debate.

The weeds of truth? He didn't even say one policy proposal regarding race and race relations, just some anecdotal bullshit about crime in Chicago. Again, vapid bullshit wrapped in his standard 6 word campaigning vocabulary.

[Skroe]

Did Trump really say euro countries have pay the US for its bases here? lol


They can fuck rigth off if they want money for it, we all know they dont have military bases here for selfless reasons.

European countries already largely pay for the bases. On account of, ya know, them being European national military bases that they invite the US military to set up shop in a building or a hangar or something.

[Deleted]

Wow.

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

This is interesting. Thanks for sharing!

[Provenance]

Just think about how the logic goes here - Trump doesn't know how to handle North Korea, so he's going to make China deal with them. But since China has no interest in doing that, he's going to somehow pressure China to do what we want when North Korea was too much for him to handle? The Chinese must seriously be salivating at the prospect of a Trump presidency right now, his plan to withdraw from Asia and leave our allies hanging just makes them easy pickings for China to come in and dominate the region.

I think China is a country that is capable of rational conversation and compromise, whereas North Korea is akin to a 3 year old child.

[cubby]

I really thought Clinton was smarter than that she looked bad.


3 debates like that and trump wins

She was great last night - not sure which debate you watched. Trump started well, Clinton started quiet and reserved. Clinton ramped up strong with good attacks. Trump, about 20 minutes in, forgot all his debate advice and just went off the rails with every question - including rudely interrupting her. He was awful. Clinton won that debate solidly.

[xenogear3]

People just want to hear what they want to hear.

If you think the current government has a problem, Trump won.

If you think everything is great, Clinton won.

[Narwal]

No he didn't. He didn't say anything of substance and kept going off topic and going over his allotted time. There was no semblance of presidential temperament at any point during that debate.

The weeds of truth? He didn't even say one policy proposal regarding race and race relations, just some anecdotal bullshit about crime in Chicago. Again, vapid bullshit wrapped in his standard 6 word campaigning vocabulary.

Stop and Frisk. See, he did. Now that I proved your entire statement false, the rest is mute.

What's anecdotal about thousands of dead black youth in the inner city of Chicago? That's reality. That's the problem with the conversation on relationship between police and the black community. The left likes to omit how dangerous these communities are. That police go into these neighborhoods just looking to kill poor innocent people because their jobs are so boring and there's nothing better to do. In reality, the police are trying to weed out some really bad dudes. They don't always get it right, they make mistakes, but a majority of this is happening in these neighborhoods that can be better described as gang war zones.

[TZucchini]

He did better than I thought he would.

You must have had tremendously low standards. He constantly interrupted Hillary with one-line remarks. His body language was awful. He had an incredibly difficult time putting together coherent answers. He again supported the unconstitutional Stop and Frisk. The birther moment was disastrous. The supermodel moment was disastrous. He told blatant lies about climate change, bankruptcies, tax returns, Iraq War, birtherism. He was constantly defending himself against accusations lobbed by Clinton. He failed to challenge Hillary on her email, Benghazi, the Clinton Foundation, or Hillary's comments about Bill's mistresses.

I just legitimately felt as though he did very poorly.

And just to touch on the "black communities", violent crime and homicide have been decreasing for over 25 years. Compared to the mid 90's, our cities are extremely safe. There's been a small increase in the rates over the past year. That's about it.

[Daerio]

He did better than I thought he would. The media prior to this debate said it was important that all media judge the debate scoring on the two candidates on the same scale. Why would they say that? Because the public doesn't score them on the same scale. What this says to me is that the media, and the public, will be scoring this debate differently. As the media, based on how they're scoring it they may say Hillary won.

Yes, they absolutely prefaced this debate with nonsense that sounded like the public needs to adjust their perception of the debate to fit the media's criteria to decide who won.

[cubby]

No he didn't. He didn't say anything of substance and kept going off topic and going over his allotted time. There was no semblance of presidential temperament at any point during that debate.

The weeds of truth? He didn't even say one policy proposal regarding race and race relations, just some anecdotal bullshit about crime in Chicago. Again, vapid bullshit wrapped in his standard 6 word campaigning vocabulary.

Glad someone else saw the debate. Trump was awful - just what people expected but hoped wouldn't show up. The only way he gets better is if he can somehow both keep his temper in check and keep the same train of thought for more than 30 seconds.

In every answer Trump gave, he was all over the place on subject matter and point. He never really made any sense the entire evening.

[LilSaihah]

People just want to hear what they want to hear.

If you think the current government has a problem, Trump won.

If you think everything is great, Clinton won.

I'm really inclined to agree. The usual suspects are out saying Trump won or Clinton won and absolutely decimated or executed or decapitated or masticated their opponent when honestly I thought it looked more like a draw (maybe with Clinton coming out a little better, if you look at the debate on its own).

[cubby]

Stop and Frisk. See, he did. Now that I proved your entire statement false, the rest is mute. What's anecdotal about thousands of dead black youth in the inner city of Chicago? That's reality.

That wasn't a policy proposal, lol. That was repeating a now illegal prior law.

[caervek]

I'm really inclined to agree. The usual suspects are out saying Trump won or Clinton won and absolutely decimated or executed or decapitated or masticated their opponent when honestly I thought it looked more like a draw

Pretty much this, Trump supporters think he did best, Clinton supporters think she did best. Personally I don't like either of them and last night did nothing to improve my opinion of either of them.