I'm not sure what debate you guys were watching, but it didn't really seem close to me. Clinton came off as well prepared and intelligent. At times her answers were overly details focused and lacked a common touch. She was a little too rehearsed on some of the answers. However in comparison, Trump rambled extensively, interrupted constantly, was at times incoherent and after the first 15 minutes kept getting distracted by arguing about his wealth and his past businesses. Clinton even got a couple of good (although obviously prepared) one liners in. It was obvious that Trump was underprepared and struggled to speak to issues with any policy detail. I know the expectations on each of them were vastly different going into the debate, but I can't see how Trump benefits from his performance. My guess is that Clinton gets a small bump and may have been able to slow the Trump campaign's momentum.
I'm so happy I was coaching last night instead of watching the debate. It looks like quite the shit show between two junior high kids. I'm voting for Johnson and Weld, these two are embarrassing.
All Trump had to do was go up there and not call Hillary Clinton a "cunt" or Rosie O'Donnell a fat pig. I think they both had good points on some items and a lot of riff raff on others. Trump took the bait and bragged about his business ventures, which was a big mistake. He was pretty ruthless for most of his career, so when Hillary brought up Trump buying and flipping foreclosed houses and he replied, "Thats business," I knew she got what she wanted out of that, even though there's nothing actually immoral about doing it. It just sounds callous. All he had to reply with on that was, "you mean the financial crisis directly caused by your biggest donors?" But she had him against a wall on that, and I dont think he really recovered from it afterwards. Well done by her. On the other side, he completed nailed her on the emails thing. She threw it up there as a simple mistake and he tore her to shreds. Neither had anything substantive to say. His points were, "Mexico China Mexico China Mexico China," and hers made it seem like she was reading cue cards off the back of her contact lenses.
See I really thought that was a missed opportunity for him. He mentioned it briefly and immediately got a big cheer, but quickly moved back to defending his failure to release his tax returns. From a strategic point of view, he should have been prepared to speak at length about the email server. He also didn't mention the Clinton Foundation, her Wall Street connections or the paid speeches. I think he got rattled and missed a lot of opportunities to bring up his core talking points. Yeah, I agree that she was a bit over rehearsed.
I think the whole thing was a push, maybe even a slight edge to Clinton. She was more polished while Trump tended to wander off topic, take her bait and then argue like a petulant 3rd grader defending himself against the bait. That being said, I have a feeling the next debate may be quite telling in the way Trump prepares and conducts himself...Trump made some easily correctable mis-steps in his presentation, Clinton did not. She brought her A Game and it was still hard to call one way or the other.
Did anyone else get really uncomfortable when Donald argued with Lester for ten minutes about whether or not he supported the Iraq war? I think my favorite part of the whole thing was the argument about Donald's income taxes. His quip about how even if he had paid it would have been squandered made me laugh a lot. In the beginning I thought Hillary sounded like a robot. I was also worried she was going to pass out. They both made an interesting word salad when discussing guns.
I was just going to bring that up myself, as I wondered if anyone else had noticed she'd said it. I don't know if it was a mistake or what, but when she said it I thought for sure he'd pounce on that.
Interesting turn of events in the Keith Scott case. Remember how his wife adamantly denied he had/owned a gun? Last year she filed a restraining order against him for threatening her....with a gun. "The order, filed in Gaston County, said that Scott hit his child in the head with his fist, kicked his wife and threatened to kill them with his gun. It also claimed that Scott told his family that "he's a killer and they should know that." It went on to say that Scott has a 9 millimeter handgun, that he did not have a permit for it and that he is a convicted felon. The order was dismissed a month later when Scott's wife said he was no longer a threat to the family." http://www.wsoctv.com/news/local/co...ts-wife-filed-for-restraining-order/450911728
That whole thing was a disaster. I don't think any questions were actually answered. I haven't watched many of the presidential debates in the past so I don't know if this was par for the course or just these two being worse than everyone else. It's hard to blame the moderator too much because after he tried calling them out on it they continued to do the same and he really has no power but to let it go. But my short take from it is Trump is either an idiot or knows what he can get away with, and Clinton can't call him out on half the things because she has a checkered past that will come back to bite her (emails, super predator comments, Benghazi - whatever your opinion of them is the more they are talked about the worse for her) But, they both missed chances to take shots at the other, most notably in my opinion the fact that I'm fairly certain Trump is advocating a war crime when he says to go in and take the oil. And would also be something that would further destabilize a region that's not doing so hot. Hipefully Mike Pence has some good foreign policy experience..
I'm still shocked that anyone with a barely functioning bullshit detector believes that he actually wants to be president. The debate was perfectly emblematic of that. Oh, she came across as a bit over prepared, did she? What a crime. She probably fucking reads books for pleasure and knowledge sometimes, too. As a Hitchens fan boy, I'm aware of her flaws. Despite her greed and deception (which to me always seemed about par for the average politician), I'm also aware of the legitimate good she's done and tried to do over a long career of boring, diplomatic, frustrating work that a major politician, let alone potential president, must do every single day. Anyone who thinks Donald has the will or faculties to do the same is, at best, getting duped by a shitty steak salesman. If this was an election for class president, she'd be the nerdy girl who thinks her classmates are dumb and that she could make the class a better place. He'd be the class bully who struggles to read. I agree with Sam Harris -- were I American, I would bet on a lottery pick of any random citizen in the country over him. It would at least be a solid bet the random person would have a shred of humility.
Sam Harris also said that he would vote for her even if he knew with 100% certainty that she would die a week after the election. And this is after explaining how much he doesn't care for Clinton. To paraphrase Don Cherry, choosing between them is like choosing between syphilis or gonorrhea. I man, obviously you pick gonorrhea but what a crummy decision to have to make.
I disagree. She's a life long politician with no charisma who got hers while also doing legitimate good for decades. He's an unabashed con-man whose business model is based largely on seeking out and taking advantage of stupid people. I'd say it's more like choosing between getting AIDS in the 80s or not having sex for four years. You won't be happy, but you'll be alive.
Ok, let me lay this out. People are by and large not voting for Donald Trump the man. Have you read his policies on his website? Even the somewhat specific ones are incredibly juvenile. Let's take the wall. It's easy to understand and it sounds tough. But ultimately it will be nothing more than a Public Works project. Most illegal immigrants since the 90's in this country are here on expired visas. In other words, a wall won't solve the problem (if you consider illegal immigration a problem). The man is a bully and a vision - no details - guy. He's using the Reagan playbook. More extreme, sure, but the policies and fear mongering are the same. But no, that's not why people are voting for Trump. They are voting for him because he represents change. Clinton represents establishment. It's really that simple. It's not about likeability, or education, or any of the other nonsense that pundits would have you believe. Most people in this country are having a hard time economically. The 'recovery' has not really been that at all. That was Sanders' appeal as well. It was about change. Either way, rest easy. Neither candidate will get anything done anyway, and they'll be one term presidents. What scares me as a political scientist is the factors that you see prior to a revolution are becoming more prevalent. If you think this election looks crazy, wait until 2020.
The two party system has created an immature social divide among people for merely having varying opinions. The ability for the average person to acknowledge and recognize that other people's lives have absolutely nothing to do with them, or that in the grand scheme of things, nothing really matters, seems to be an impossibility for many people to understand. Your actions, decisions, feelings, and thoughts outside of your immediate circle of family and friends does not matter. Stop categorizing yourselves based on what everyone else is doing and start thinking. That all out there, I honestly don't know who I am going to vote for.
This honestly blows my mind a little bit. Why wouldn't you vote against him just based on decorum alone? Putting aside things like his musings and dangerous lack of knowledge about nuclear weapons and proliferation, wouldn't you prefer someone who doesn't make fun of the handicapped/(insert any group here) to represent your country on the global stage? Hillary likely wouldn't have as great or memorable speeches as Obama has, but they'd be coherent. Doesn't the thought of President Trump giving a speech after the next mass shooting kinda gross you out? Or him addressing the UN? Remember the breath of fresh air that was Obama's ability to speak, after eight years of bumbling Bush? It'd be like that, only Donald wouldn't even try to sound smart. And you wouldn't be able to just change the channel away from his show -- his word vomit would be everywhere. The guy would get kicked off this board in a week, and we're a bunch of assholes (minus Shegirl and Audrey). Everyone would hate him, and we all know he wouldn't type well enough. Yet you're rubbing your chin deciding between him and a grandmotherly type who's at least attempted to do good over decades of public service?
Probably because Hillary's behavior is just as reprehensible in a different way, shes just better at hiding it.
This election is, if anything, a testament to how bad she sucks at everything. With Trump's roclivity to wards ignorance, lies, bigotry and other gaffs; any democrat worth half their ass would be blowing him the fuck away right now. She might lose to him because for a "career politician" she isn't good at her job. At all. Yes. This is the WORST election in American history.