First presidential debate - September 26: Trump vs Hillary

[Macaquerie]

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.

Thing is, from a rational, realpolitik perspective, North Korea is a huge asset for China that they'd be fools to ever give up. It's unlikely that China actually believes that they can really control a nuclear armed NK, but they don't really have to. Every nuclear test they conduct forces America and our allies to expend more resources shoring up defenses, and also makes us look extremely weak for not being able to put a stop to it. And if our commitment to the region wanes, it allows China to step in with the sales pitch that they can protect Asian countries from threats that America doesn't want to deal with, and pull more states into their sphere and away from ours. The Chinese leadership knows that once Kim and his cronies are gone, THEY become the big bad bully on the block that everyone needs to set their differences aside to deal with, and they don't want that fight yet.

[Endus]

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.

Even aside from the (lack of) described policy goals that Trump provided, if you just look at demeanor, Trump got angrier and angrier at being needled over things he'd obviously said and done. He kept rudely interrupting, even after being warned several times by the moderator to cut it out, which was straight-up childish. He'd refuse to answer questions, which is a big no-no in a debate.

Clinton, on the other hand, was cool and collected for the most part, gave informative answers, and when Trump was spouting off about something ridiculous, would chuckle about how adorably pathetic it was. I don't see how even Trump supporters can look at that and think Trump "won" anything. He came to a debate with a "career politician" without any idea how to fight that kind of fight, and it showed.

[Felya]

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.

You have to understand that the support of the two has different requirements. Look at why people say he won and you might notice that they use similar reason for it, that you use for why he lost. Yes, Hillary under the same microscope still won, but if Hillary had used "400 pounders sitting on their bed" using their pcs, there would be an outrage over her insulting internet users. For Trump, him saying this is what hacked DNC is success:

http://vignette3.wikia.nocookie.net/...20140821045133

[cubby]

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).

People saying Trump won didn't watch the debate. By any measurable standard Clinton was ahead by a mile.

Policy
Coherence
Train of Thought
Answering the Question
Circling around to the larger Point
Truthfulness

[Daerio]

Clinton also sounded incredibly robotic as usual. For someone who practices their speeches so much she really isn't very good at delivering them. Some of the lines were actually not bad, but the way she delivered sucked.

Such as "...I call it 'Trumped Up' trickle down economics..." It was actually a pretty good burn, but she could barely get the line out coherently. She isn't much of a joke teller. She doesn't seem to be much of a public speaker when she's trying to stick so closely to the script, either.

I've seen videos of her doing some real talk where she seemed somewhat intelligent, but the debate replicant is out of tune or something.

It seems her biggest strengths are selling out her public office for private profit, and this experience is supposed to translate to being president so I'm told. Oh, and pantsuits.

Trump was unpracticed and using some tired rhetoric, but as usual he was "real" with it.

[Endus]

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.

Just one of many blatant lies he told. Violent crime, as Clinton noted, has basically been falling steadily since 1991, in the USA. The last year, there's been a small uptick, which may just be a statistical anomaly; those have happened before, following by continuing decline. This is not evidence that violence has been growing throughout Obama's Presidency; that's just flat-out false. In fact, if you can tie it to anything, it's to Trump's candidacy, timing-wise.

[Deleted]

Thing is, from a rational, realpolitik perspective, North Korea is a huge asset for China that they'd be fools to ever give up. It's unlikely that China actually believes that they can really control a nuclear armed NK, but they don't really have to. Every nuclear test they conduct forces America and our allies to expend more resources shoring up defenses, and also makes us look extremely weak for not being able to put a stop to it. And if our commitment to the region wanes, it allows China to step in with the sales pitch that they can protect Asian countries from threats that America doesn't want to deal with, and pull more states into their sphere and away from ours. The Chinese leadership knows that once Kim and his cronies are gone, THEY become the big bad bully on the block that everyone needs to set their differences aside to deal with, and they don't want that fight yet.

China has warned NK a few times now that it will invade the moment it feels NK violates any boundaries set between the two of them.

[Endus]

It seems her biggest strengths are selling out her public office for private profit

That literally never happened, but hey, straight-up lying's the new way to go for you folks, I guess.

[Breccia]

Stop and Frisk.

Did you just say "stop and frisk" was a policy regarding race relations?

I'm not sure you meant to say that.

EDIT: You know that was ruled unconstitutional, right?

[cubby]

You have to understand that the support of the two has different requirements. Look at why people say he won and you might notice that they use similar reason for it, that you use for why he lost. Yes, Hillary under the same microscope still won, but if Hillary had used "400 pounders sitting on their bed" using their pcs, there would be an outrage over her insulting internet users. For Trump, him saying this is what hacked DNC is success:

http://vignette3.wikia.nocookie.net/...20140821045133

This is a very good point. Clinton definitely won the debate by objective standards, but Trumpers don't care about those - and so yes, to them he won (that 400 lb comment was insane). However, the issue isn't whether Trumpers would abandon their support - if you already support Trump there is no helping you (not you Felya, but "you" in general").

However, the debate was about undecideds - and in that category Clinton won by a landslide. There was was only one Presidential figure on that stage last night. Maybe Trump can be ambassador to North Korea.

[Felya]

Clinton, on the other hand, was cool and collected for the most part, gave informative answers, and when Trump was spouting off about something ridiculous, would chuckle about how adorably pathetic it was. I don't see how even Trump supporters can look at that and think Trump "won" anything. He came to a debate with a "career politician" without any idea how to fight that kind of fight, and it showed.

Because Trump has a different standard. As long as the argument after the debate is not something like: "The bathroom was 5 min away and if he had to go, that was the best place on the stage he could." Then, he won...

[Daerio]

That literally never happened, but hey, straight-up lying's the new way to go for you folks, I guess.

Clinton foundation donations being a requirement for getting access to the secretary of state is pay to play. That's selling your public office for private profit, even if you stick in it a foundation with your name on it and call it charity.

The evidence for her selling out her office as secretary of state alone is overwhelming.

[Deleted]

Clinton also sounded incredibly robotic as usual. For someone who practices their speeches so much she really isn't very good at delivering them. Some of the lines were actually not bad, but the way she delivered sucked.

Such as "...I call it 'Trumped Up' trickle down economics..." It was actually a pretty good burn, but she could barely get the line out coherently. She isn't much of a joke teller. She doesn't seem to be much of a public speaker when she's trying to stick so closely to the script, either.

I've seen videos of her doing some real talk where she seemed somewhat intelligent, but the debate replicant is out of tune or something.

It seems her biggest strengths are selling out her public office for private profit, and this experience is supposed to translate to being president so I'm told.

Trump was unpracticed and using some tired rhetoric, but as usual he was "real" with it.

She's a lawyer, they are generally all like this, but it doesn't make her points any less true.

Trump might have been real, but he's was a mess. Easily the dumbest presidential candidate I've ever seen.

He can't keep his cool for 10 minutes, every time he said 'not true' it was basically a lie.

One lie per minute, not even Hillary could even keep up with that.

[cubby]

Just one of many blatant lies he told. Violent crime, as Clinton noted, has basically been falling steadily since 1991, in the USA. The last year, there's been a small uptick, which may just be a statistical anomaly; those have happened before, following by continuing decline. This is not evidence that violence has been growing throughout Obama's Presidency; that's just flat-out false. In fact, if you can tie it to anything, it's to Trump's candidacy, timing-wise.

He never stopped lying the entire debate - one after another. On almost every topic - new and old. I believe Clinton had one little hiccup re TPP - she did in fact say it was the Gold Standard, iirc.

But Trump's every breath was a lie.

[Noxx79]

Did you just say "stop and frisk" was a policy regarding race relations?

I'm not sure you meant to say that.

EDIT: You know that was ruled unconstitutional, right?

No I'm sure he meant that. The best way to solve race relations is to use a illegally racist procedure to randomly search disproportionately minorities for weapons. Having minorities so fed up with the legal system that they have to leave is a way to solve race relations, right?

[LilSaihah]

People saying Trump won didn't watch the debate. By any measurable standard Clinton was ahead by a mile.

Policy
Coherence
Train of Thought
Answering the Question
Circling around to the larger Point
Truthfulness

I certainly agree that Trump didn't win the debate but I don't think Clinton drew quite the decisive advantage that's being suggested.

[Zarc]

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

Ill-carismatic people are the best people to vote into office. With a charismatic person you run the risk of people looking past their terrible policies and voting for the person because they like the individuals personality. That's why Ronald Reagan got to be President and lay the groundwork for the financial crisis and the massive income inequality the US has now. Thankfully Trump is no Ronald Reagan, but an authoritarian narcissist. Hopefully the only sane person on that debate stage with sound economic, social and foreign policies will go on to win the Presidency. Then we can begin to discuss why some people's minds are so fucked up that they would be let Trump get so close to being elected President.

[Endus]

Clinton foundation donations being a requirement for getting access to the secretary of state is pay to play. That's selling your public office for private profit, even if you stick in it a foundation with your name on it and call it charity.

And it also literally never happened. It's a deliberate lie.

[Macaquerie]

China has warned NK a few times now that it will invade the moment it feels NK violates any boundaries set between the two of them.

What exactly would they gain from that? Just another 25 million mouths to feed who happen to be indoctrinated in a far more extreme Marxist ideology than has been seen in China in quite some time. Nobody wants that problem, not China, not South Korea, and definitely not the US.

[Daerio]

She's a lawyer, they are generally all like this, but it doesn't make her points any less true.

Trump might have been real, but he's was a mess. Easily the dumbest presidential candidate I've ever seen.

He can't keep his cool for 10 minutes, every time he said 'not true' it was basically a lie.

One lie per minute, not even Hillary could even keep up with that.

I think the biggest problem Clinton has is balancing the load of bullshit she's carrying on her back any time she opens her mouth. It's why she can't come off as smooth and natural, because she's bullshitting the entire time and trying to appear calm and collected and "presidential."

There are other politicians that are legit and can speak their mind without the 15 seconds of delay for processing the bullshit between every word. Sanders, Warren, and I'm liking Trey Gowdy more and more.