Debate opinions?

[*michaelsean*]

I watched half an hour.

On one side was the greatest, the best the brightest, the worst, disaster. He knows a lot of people and they tell him a lot of things. Oh yeah and I think China could be up to something.

On the other side was fair share. Whatever was proposed was going to be paid for by the rich paying their fair share. The wealthiest's fair share must be $5 trillion a year.

[GMDino]

I said elsewhere that Clinton takes a lot of heat from the right for being "too much like a politician" and "too scripted".

Then they say we need someone like Reagan again.

I don't think they remember Reagan the way the rest of us do.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

The only debate that's going to matter is the last one. I have a feeling Trump is rope a doping Clinton in the meantime.

[GMDino]

(09-27-2016, 10:07 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: The only debate that's going to matter is the last one.  I have a feeling Trump is rope a doping Clinton in the meantime.

Well you're half right.  He's a dope.

[*bfine32*]

(09-27-2016, 10:07 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: The only debate that's going to matter is the last one. I have a feeling Trump is rope a doping Clinton in the meantime.

This is how I see it. Hills was much more on the offensive last night than Trump.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(09-27-2016, 02:05 PM)bfine32 Wrote: This is how I see it. Hills was much more on the offensive last night than Trump.

If he has any bombshells the best place to use them would be the last debate.  No one remembers the previous debate, I got the impression he was biding his time.

[Vas Deferens]

(09-27-2016, 03:43 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: If he has any bombshells the best place to use them would be the last debate.  No one remembers the previous debate, I got the impression he was biding his time.

His 10 year old is going to do the computers and get back to him.

[6andcounting]

Read this on the Facebook page Unbiased America. I think it's a good take:


The first debate is in the books. And our prediction was pretty much spot on.

HILLARY CLINTON: Hillary had a strong performance, as expected. Her experience advantage in debates made a big difference. She was calm, didn't get flustered as many of Trump's past opponents did, and stuck to her talking points. Indeed she was the more aggressive debater, attacking Donald on his taxes, his businesses, his questionable past statements, and keeping him on the defensive for much of the night. Most of all, she had no major gaffes, which is the number one rule of debating.

On the downside, she didn't really make much of a case for why people should vote for her. Most of her talking points consisted of empty rhetoric and platitudes, the type of forgettable political speak that goes in one ear and out the other. Still, better to be forgettable than to screw up.

DONALD TRUMP: The first portion of the debate went well for Donald. The topic, trade, was right in his populist wheelhouse. He pointed out the inconsistencies of Hillary's evolving positions, her connection to unpopular trade agreements, etc.
But as the night went on, a trend became apparent. Hillary would criticize him, and Donald would get flustered trying to defend himself. There was an especially uncomfortable moment in which Trump rambled, to which Hillary responded with an eye roll and "Oh Donald", eliciting laughter from the audience.
When he stuck to the issues and his talking points, he was very effective, especially in raising questions about Hillary's policies. But when he went off topic, he came across poorly. Not a disaster, but not a great performance.

LESTER HOLT: The moderator let the candidates talk and did fairly well for the most part. But he wasn't entirely impartial.

There was one Candy Crowley moment in which Holt injected himself into the debate by telling Trump that he was wrong, similar to what Crowley had done to Mitt Romney in 2012. Holt insisted that there was no evidence Trump had been against the Iraqi War, despite Donald insisting he had been. It was bizarre and inappropriate, in my opinion. And Holt was also wrong, just as Crowley had been in 2012. There is evidence Trump was against the Iraq War - http://www.foxnews.com/…/2003-clip-backs-up-trump-on-iraq-w…
Holt also seemed to target Trump for most of the controversial questions of the night, such as his birther comments and his tax returns, while giving Hillary softball questions. Overall it was what most expected it would be, a biased performance, though not as bad as it could have been given all the talk about the need for moderators to "get tough on Trump".

THE MEDIA: The media's reaction has been very predictable. So far nearly all have pronounced it a Hillary victory, and focused on Trump's negatives. Unfortunately for Donald, he performed just badly enough that most voters will agree with the media. Still, there's no way to predict how people will react until new polls come out. He could very well continue to gain support. Stay tuned...

[*PhilHos*]

(09-27-2016, 09:36 PM)6andcounting Wrote: Read this on the Facebook page Unbiased America. I think it's a good take:


The first debate is in the books. And our prediction was pretty much spot on.

HILLARY CLINTON: Hillary had a strong performance, as expected. Her experience advantage in debates made a big difference. She was calm, didn't get flustered as many of Trump's past opponents did, and stuck to her talking points. Indeed she was the more aggressive debater, attacking Donald on his taxes, his businesses, his questionable past statements, and keeping him on the defensive for much of the night. Most of all, she had no major gaffes, which is the number one rule of debating.

On the downside, she didn't really make much of a case for why people should vote for her. Most of her talking points consisted of empty rhetoric and platitudes, the type of forgettable political speak that goes in one ear and out the other. Still, better to be forgettable than to screw up.

DONALD TRUMP: The first portion of the debate went well for Donald. The topic, trade, was right in his populist wheelhouse. He pointed out the inconsistencies of Hillary's evolving positions, her connection to unpopular trade agreements, etc.
But as the night went on, a trend became apparent. Hillary would criticize him, and Donald would get flustered trying to defend himself. There was an especially uncomfortable moment in which Trump rambled, to which Hillary responded with an eye roll and "Oh Donald", eliciting laughter from the audience.
When he stuck to the issues and his talking points, he was very effective, especially in raising questions about Hillary's policies. But when he went off topic, he came across poorly. Not a disaster, but not a great performance.

LESTER HOLT: The moderator let the candidates talk and did fairly well for the most part. But he wasn't entirely impartial.

There was one Candy Crowley moment in which Holt injected himself into the debate by telling Trump that he was wrong, similar to what Crowley had done to Mitt Romney in 2012. Holt insisted that there was no evidence Trump had been against the Iraqi War, despite Donald insisting he had been. It was bizarre and inappropriate, in my opinion. And Holt was also wrong, just as Crowley had been in 2012. There is evidence Trump was against the Iraq War - http://www.foxnews.com/…/2003-clip-backs-up-trump-on-iraq-w…
Holt also seemed to target Trump for most of the controversial questions of the night, such as his birther comments and his tax returns, while giving Hillary softball questions. Overall it was what most expected it would be, a biased performance, though not as bad as it could have been given all the talk about the need for moderators to "get tough on Trump".

THE MEDIA: The media's reaction has been very predictable. So far nearly all have pronounced it a Hillary victory, and focused on Trump's negatives. Unfortunately for Donald, he performed just badly enough that most voters will agree with the media. Still, there's no way to predict how people will react until new polls come out. He could very well continue to gain support. Stay tuned...

That sounds about right. My only thing is that I think the take away will be that those supporting Trump will say he won and those supporting Hillary will say she won, which, so far, seems to be the case. Other than that, this is a spot on assessment of the debate.

[6andcounting]

(09-28-2016, 12:26 PM)PhilHos Wrote: That sounds about right. My only thing is that I think the take away will be that those supporting Trump will say he won and those supporting Hillary will say she won, which, so far, seems to be the case. Other than that, this is a spot on assessment of the debate.

Presidential debates aren't about winning the debate. They are about putting out the campaign's talking points and putting the candidate in better position to win the presidency. Winning all the debates and losing the election is like having a good regular season and losing in the first round off the playoffs 6 years in a row.

Trump has yet to do a single debate where he cared one bit about the actual debate. In typical Trump fashion, Trump just uses the debates free airtime to promote himself by being entertaining. That's how he won the GOP nominations.

I'm sure they both question some of the finer details in hindsight, but both seemingly achieved their campaign goals they had for the debate. Looking at it that way, it's not surprising both sides supporters think it was a success.


That and partisan politics still plays some role. 34% of the country said they thought Obama won the first debate against Romney.

[GMDino]

(09-28-2016, 09:51 PM)6andcounting Wrote: Presidential debates aren't about winning the debate. They are about putting out the campaign's talking points and putting the candidate in better position to win the presidency. Winning all the debates and losing the election is like having a good regular season and losing in the first round off the playoffs 6 years in a row.

Trump has yet to do a single debate where he cared one bit about the actual debate. In typical Trump fashion, Trump just uses the debates free airtime to promote himself by being entertaining. That's how he won the GOP nominations.

I'm sure they both question some of the finer details in hindsight, but both seemingly achieved their campaign goals they had for the debate. Looking at it that way, it's not surprising both sides supporters think it was a success.  


That and partisan politics still plays some role. 34% of the country said they thought Obama won the first debate against Romney.

And in the Republican debates all he needed to do was get people who were already voting Republican to like his "ideas" and "really great words" better.

In the Presidential debates he needs to get OTHER people to think he's presidential also.  

But given the delusion that Trump supporters have about him it doesn't surprise me one bit that they think he won anything.

[NATI BENGALS]

My god.

Why the hell do i have to watch Donald Trump when I watch a presidential debate? Shit man.

Tremendous embarrassment.

[Belsnickel]

I think that if Donald would have restrained himself he might have come out on top last night. His constant interruptions and complaints about speaking time (even though he was getting more) last night were childish. Both were very scripted, and as a result there was no clear victory.

[GMDino]

I can tell how bad Trump did / good Clinton did based solely on the number or anti-Clinton memes I see on Facebook.

Today I would say she kicked his ass.




He looked bad...but he always looks bad.  His based must have loved it.  Anyone who was still trying to make up their minds was probably put off by it.

She looked frustrated and that might work against her.  But there was no Al Gore sigh moments of HW checking his watch moments to make her lose support.

Actual issue wise he just doesn't have anything.  My wife and I spent most of the night asking if what he said even counted as a sentence.  She has a plan, she talks about her plan, but I still don't know what her plan is and how it will affect me.

He looked like a reality show host.  She looked like a politician.  Pick your poison.

[GMDino]

Wanted to add that I listened to the first 20 minutes or so in the car and Trump's sniffling was worse than when you watch it on television.

Also, I haven't checked the fact checkers yet but when Trump said he didn't say anything about going to see the sex tape in his 3am tweet I almost feel off the couch.

I can't remember seeing someone in the public eye, running for office who lied so often and so confidently.

[Bengalbug]

i agree with trump- Hillary has evil in her and bad judgement
I agree with Hillary - trump is unfit as a president

Beyond that - a bunch of shit on a plate. They are both liars, that have their clear cut agendas with little public interest. If either were worth half a damn, they had an incredible opportunity to completely crush their opponent. I'm 30 years old and have never been hugely into politics. But these debates are a huge turn off. That these are the two best candidates America can offer is incredible. I don't think "how stupid is our country" should refer to attacks on terrorism. That comment is best served with allowing one of these two to run this country.

[BmorePat87]

(10-10-2016, 09:26 AM)GMDino Wrote: Wanted to add that I listened to the first 20 minutes or so in the car and Trump's sniffling was worse than when you watch it on television.

Also, I haven't checked the fact checkers yet but when Trump said he didn't say anything about going to see the sex tape in his 3am tweet I almost feel off the couch.

I can't remember seeing someone in the public eye, running for office who lied so often and so confidently.

AC: "In the days after the first debate, you sent out a series of tweets from 3 a.m. to 5 a.m., including one that told people to check out a sex tape. Is that the discipline of a good president?"



DT: "No, it wasn’t saying, ‘check out a sex tape.’ It was just ‘take a look at the person she built up to be this wonderful girl scout, who was no girl scout.’ "

[*bfine32*]

It doesn't matter if we ask here who won. You give me a board member and I will tell you who they say won.

I do think Trump scored pretty big with the "You'd be in jail" and "blaming Honest Abe" jabs. I also found it hilarious when Hills was asked about calling Americans deplorables it became the Russian's fault.

I will say Hills was much more poised and appeared much more Presidential.

[fredtoast]

(09-27-2016, 09:36 PM)6andcounting Wrote:  Holt insisted that there was no evidence Trump had been against the Iraqi War, despite Donald insisting he had been. It was bizarre and inappropriate, in my opinion. And Holt was also wrong, just as Crowley had been in 2012. ell continue to gain support. Stay tuned...

Crowley was not wrong in 2012.

[*michaelsean*]

This is my daughter's first election to vote in. Jesus.