Clinton - Trump Debate

Shame it's not being broadcast in the UK. I'll wager there would be a large audience here too, waiting nervously to see what you guys accross the pond do for your next president.

rjstaines posted:

Shame it's not being broadcast in the UK. I'll wager there would be a large audience here too, waiting nervously to see what you guys accross the pond do for your next president.

This is ridiculous, I'm listening to it on the bbc channel in the other side of the world.

Edit:

There is also a site in the internet : http://www.npr.org/2016/09/26/...-presidential-debate

I would have liked to see it, however only heard some snippets through CNN, will be interesting to see what the effect of the debate is on the voting ...

While I wouldn't like see Trump winning the election.....

Worst Kraftwerk concert I've seen !

I watched a little of the debate last night. It only reinforced my existing opinions.

Irrespective of party politics, I would not touch Donald Trump with a bargepole, and I fail to understand how anyone, irrespective of their party politics could ever even consider voting for him to be President of the US. Some of the comments he made last night were truly 'cringe-making'. Apologies to any Americans on the forum, but I could not think of a more appropriate word to use. I really hope that if he is elected President, he will simply be a figurehead, and that the country and its international politics in particular will in reality be governed by other faceless people in the background with at least some decency and grasp of International affairs. Still a hugely frightening prospect, but very slightly mitigated. 

How did the Republican party ever get to this stage. It almost makes our own Brexit debacle pale into insignificance by comparison.  

Hilary Clinton, whatever you may think of her and her politics, came across to me a being very calm, considered and statesman-like and someone of whom the US need not be ashamed of as a figurehead.

Simply my opinion, and I would love to hear any counter opinions and arguments.

Hmack posted:

I watched a little of the debate last night. It only reinforced my existing opinions.

.... I really hope that if he is elected President, he will simply be a figurehead, and that the country and its international politics in particular will in reality be governed by other faceless people in the background with at least some decency and grasp of International affairs. ...

 

Isn't that the very essence of the Presidential role, regardless of who gets it?

G

Yes - I guess so, to a large extent. 

However, I somehow don't think Donald Trump and his ego will view things this way. He will still potentially be able to cause an awful lot of direct or collateral damage.  

Listening to interviews with Trump supporters this morning, it's amazing that they all thought that he'd administered a drubbing. But I guess they wouldn't be Trump supporters without a strong tendency to see only what they want to see.

rjstaines posted:

Shame it's not being broadcast in the UK. I'll wager there would be a large audience here too, waiting nervously to see what you guys accross the pond do for your next president.

It was broadcast in the UK, on the BBC News channel (i.e. BBC 1 after hours).  I watched it myself.

Trump is an amazing proponent of what is sometimes known as the Gish Gallop, often including fantasies or distortions.  It means he can get away with some outrageous statements because there's only time or opportunity to refute a small proportion of what he comes out with.  It's an alarmingly effective debating technique (in general, not just when Trump uses it - I've seen it a lot in debates over theism), even despite attempts to fact check what he says, because the fact check websites etc will always lag behind the original statement in terms of attention and impact.

The debate was the first time I'd seen Trump speak at length.  We've all seen the mental soundbites etc, but actually listening to him for a while was a different experience.  I found myself thinking during the first 20 minutes or so that he was winning the debate.  Or more accurately 'Oh my god, this madness addled insane-onaut* is coming out with complete rubbish, and he's going to win the debate'.

But the latter 2/3 of the debate went to Clinton, I thought.  Especially towards the end, when ironically Trump tried to impugn her stamina while starting to flounder himself.  There may have not been any knockout blows, but there were one or two zingers.  Clinton was clearly mindful of the need to control herself and not appear contemptuous or irritated - which is the right approach - but Tump seemed to become more thin-skinned and less focused as time went on.

Possibly the most alarming thing of all was a failing inherent to public debates - that who won or lost, whether there were any knockouts etc didn't actually hinge on the content of what was being said, but rather the bluster with which they said it.  On paper, exchanges like 'I should be in charge because I'm a great businessman'......  'You've filed for bankruptcy 6 times' should be more incendiary.  But Trump always scores extra points for bluster.

Ultimately I'd call it a win for Clinton, but one that may not have much impact on polls/floating voters.  In itself, that's kind of staggering.

That Trump is now claiming that his microphone didn't work properly when there was clearly nothing wrong with it is just plain weird.

*Actual content paraphrased.

Hmack posted:

How did the Republican party ever get to this stage. It almost makes our own Brexit debacle pale into insignificance by comparison.  

At least Trump will be for 4 years... Brexit is for ever!

Eloise posted:

Hmack posted:

How did the Republican party ever get to this stage. It almost makes our own Brexit debacle pale into insignificance by comparison.  

At least Trump will be for 4 years... Brexit is for ever!

You have a point!

But then, will the US, and those of us in the rest of the world, survive 4 years of a Trump Presidency?

Hmack posted:

Eloise posted:

Hmack posted:

How did the Republican party ever get to this stage. It almost makes our own Brexit debacle pale into insignificance by comparison.  

At least Trump will be for 4 years... Brexit is for ever!

You have a point!

But then, will the US, and those of us in the rest of the world, survive 4 years of a Trump Presidency?

There is no chance that the orange buffoon will last 4 years (if he is elected at all - hopefully this is vanishingly unlikely). He will be impeached, at least, and likely jailed for some gross overstepping of the authority of the office.

Dave***t posted:

rjstaines posted:

Shame it's not being broadcast in the UK. I'll wager there would be a large audience here too, waiting nervously to see what you guys accross the pond do for your next president.

It was broadcast in the UK, on the BBC News channel (i.e. BBC 1 after hours).  I watched it myself.

Trump is an amazing proponent of what is sometimes known as the Gish Gallop, often including fantasies or distortions.  It means he can get away with some outrageous statements because there's only time or opportunity to refute a small proportion of what he comes out with.  It's an alarmingly effective debating technique (in general, not just when Trump uses it.............

Ultimately I'd call it a win for Clinton, but one that may not have much impact on polls/floating voters.  In itself, that's kind of staggering.

That Trump is now claiming that his microphone didn't work properly when there was clearly nothing wrong with it is just plain weird.

 

Well Dave, I would say you're point on. It's not like Hillary delivered a knockout blow, but the Donald was awful.

But remember, the Donald, is a vote against the status quo. Furthermore, Bernie Sanders was a vote against the status quo, and Hillary represents the status quo.

Obama, and Bernie has a tremendous ground game, which should be beneficial for Hillary.

Hillary is teaming up with Bernie in New Hampshire to campaign for the Millennium vote. If all goes according to plan, Hillary will  make history, and become the first woman president.

However, you still can't count the Donald out, die heart conservatives, are voting for the party, regardless of who pulling the wagon.

Furthermore, the System is failing the younger generation, which could represent 25% of the vote. That's where Bernie's ground game can help put Hillary over the top!

But in the end, who ever wins the Executive branch of government, the System must be Democratized.

You gents know his name, Yanis Varoufakis, I think, ex prime minister of Greece.

The Troika, who gave you your power, and how can we, the Republic, get rid of you!

Just my perspective!

Allante93!

Yes, Varoufakis, the ex-finance minister of Greece, whose resignation was demanded by the economic powers that be. It was his appropriation of Thrasymachus' line for the title of his book that prompted me to use it in the lyrics to one of the songs on my band's new album. (I just mention it in passing, not as a plug - you wouldn't like it ).

The Donald (nice turn of phrase) is far from being counted out, in fact I look forward with a degree of dread to the next debate - the areas where he fell short were quite clear, I thought, and so will be easy to address in terms of revising the strategy next time around. He'll be much stronger in round 2, I think, precisely because his weaknesses were clearer this time. I predict even more emphasis on 'You've been at this game for years and you still haven't fixed it', trade deal bashing, and a veritable avalanche of '33000 emails!!!!!!11?11!!!'. The interesting part will likely be whether he can keep himself on the decorum side of shrill. His advisors will no doubt already be concentrating on that side of things after the meltdown alarm bells started ringing during his extraordinary rant about whether he supported the Iraq war.

It's less clear to me where Clinton goes to build on her performance. Facts don't work very well, it seems, and trying to goad him into betraying his poor temperament is likely to backfire because of the need to present her as a bit more of a warm person. So trying even harder to look stateswoman-like and more plausibly presidential may be the order of the day.

As an outsider it's a generally fascinating, alarming, repulsive and compelling spectacle.

GraemeH posted:

Hmack posted:

.... I really hope that if he is elected President, he will simply be a figurehead, and that the country and its international politics in particular will in reality be governed by other faceless people in the background with at least some decency and grasp of International affairs. ...

 

Isn't that the very essence of the Presidential role, regardless of who gets it?

G

Not at all. An effective US President is a facilitator, invoking compromise and massaging partisan politics between the House and Senate to pass or suppress legislation. A queen is a figurehead.

Dave***t posted:

It was broadcast in the UK, on the BBC News channel (i.e. BBC 1 after hours).  I watched it myself.

Trump is an amazing proponent of what is sometimes known as the Gish Gallop, often including fantasies or distortions. .......

That Trump is now claiming that his microphone didn't work properly when there was clearly nothing wrong with it is just plain weird.

The comic late shows, are having a ball, Seth Meyers, talk show host figured out the problem with Trump's mic.

It was picking up every word coming out of his mouth. LOL

But on a serious note, I agree, the Donald will make an comeback, and as you pointed out the needle most likely, won't move against him.

The Donald polls well with the uneducated white, they feel connected, his weakness is with minorities, and females.

This election is unique, it has bought rise to an populist movement, in which progressive left wings, and reactionary right wings are dissatisfied with the status quo. 

George Wallace, Donald Trump, belonging to the latter, and Teddy Roosevelt, and Bernie Sanders belonging to the former.

An uphill battle for the Donald, but it will be close, the outcome can be affected by the third party.

The commission said:

""the two third-party candidates didn’t register enough support in polls to qualify for the debate. The commission has set a 15 percent threshold. Johnson averaged 8.4 percent in the polls the commission considered, and Stein 3.2 percent.""

Bernie Sanders:

""Sanders (I-VT) on Friday urged Americans considering voting for third-party presidential candidates to instead vote for Hillary Clinton, painting Donald Trump as a risk that the country cannot afford.""

One thing for sure, on the international landscape, Russia might be the only political statesmen, that are rooting for the Donald.

 Just my perspective!

Allante93!

I'm in the US and to be brutally honest neither candidate is fit to be President. It is an embarrassment that these are our 2 options. 

My only hope is that our current checks and balances in the government hold out and minimize the damage that either candidate would inflict on the country. 

Hillary is the embodiment of a corrupt government. She is way crooked and many ignore it. She has admitted to criminal actions and has used her political power to avoid prosecution. 

Trump is just unfit to run the country.  He seems to think that he is running for King.  I'd be very concerned about his behavior on the world stage.

Brubacca, you might want to check out John Oliver's recent bit on their respective scandals.

Brubacca posted:

"Hillary is the embodiment of a corrupt government. She is way crooked and many ignore it. She has admitted to criminal actions and has used her political power to avoid prosecution". 

A number of people seem to  claim this from time to time, but it is a sentiment that I just don't  understand. Quite apart from the constant & amusing  (well to people outside the US anyway) anti -democrat campaigning & ranting on the Murdoch 'comedy' channel (I.e. Fox News) - witness their constant re-iteration of the e-mail issue,, I have never come across any evidence to support this viewpoint.

Luckily for us in the UK, Murdoch's news channel in the UK (Sky News) provides a fairly balanced presentation of political events. It is a legitimate news channel, unlike Fox News.

Obama peed in the well by being inspiring. Bernie Sanders and his cargo cult were inspiring. People of a certain age may have taken it for granted that one of the general election candidates would stand out that way, but inspiring candidates are actually pretty rare--almost as rate as perfect candidates. 

One of these two is going to be the president in January. You hold your nose and vote. 

This election can be summed up rather simply:

Republicans don't know how stupid they are.

Democrats don't know how smart they aren't.

We are so f***ed it isn't even funny.

Hopefully we can keep our judges above ground for another four years.

JRHardee posted:

Obama peed in the well by being inspiring. Bernie Sanders and his cargo cult were inspiring. People of a certain age may have taken it for granted that one of the general election candidates would stand out that way, but inspiring candidates are actually pretty rare--almost as rate as perfect candidates. 

One of these two is going to be the president in January. You hold your nose and vote. 

Ok JR, to put it mildly, you are not impressed by either candidate.

Help me out with this one, the candidates represents the parties best choice to lead and govern the parties platform.

Now the RNC & DNC has guidelines and rules to ensure they have major input, as it relates to who leads their party.

The RNC was in such a disarray, they end up with the Donald, who just happens to be a protest vote against the party.

The DNC managed to enforce it's rules and guidelines to stop Bernie.

So we the People, the Republic, for which it stands, is left with the Status quo Candidate and the Donald, who's disliked by his own party.

Now Bush inherited a 5 trillion dollar surplus, and turned it into a 11 trillion dollar deficit.

All this within an 8 year period, without Obama gridlock, A majority ran House, with Split ending Congress.

Now many may not believe him, but even the Donald didn't support the Invasion of Iraq, which led to the Birth of ISIS!

Now Obama inherits all of this, and is to green to take advantage of an Democratic Senate and House.

Now, a Republican House, which wouldn't allow Obama to select an Supreme court judge, which will explode in their face, if Crooked Hillary takes the Executive seat!

A Supreme court, which has been conservative during the last 5 decades.

So Obama is exercising his only power, the pen, because he's a lame duck.

Well, I not a political activist, but it sounds like a broken System!

We can vote, but we the People, must hold are elected officials accountable!

Don't take the bait!

United we stand, divided we fall!

Polarization is not good for the United states of America!

We can't stoop to the level of our elected officials. Name Calling, etc...

Instead common core issues, that benefit both the Republic, and Corporate America.

Just my perspective!

Allante93!

Allante93 posted:

Now many may not believe him, but even the Donald didn't support the Invasion of Iraq, which led to the Birth of ISIS!

Except its not true that Donald didn't support the Invasion of Iraq which is why many don't believe him.  At least his public statements don't suggest he was against the Invasion of Iraq.

http://www.politifact.com/trut...as-against-war-iraq/

However, one thing is clear: The record does not prove [he was against the invasion].

Trump has trouble getting past a September 2002 interview with shock jock Howard Stern. Stern asked Trump if he supported the looming invasion.

Trump responded, "Yeah, I guess so."

In Trump's defence however...

Trump [...] noted another interview he did in January 2003, a few months before the invasion. Fox News’ Neil Cavuto asked Trump whether President George W. Bush should be more focused on Iraq or the economy.

"Well, he has either got to do something or not do something, perhaps, because perhaps shouldn't be doing it yet and perhaps we should be waiting for the United Nations, you know," Trump said. "He's under a lot of pressure. I think he's doing a very good job. But, of course, if you look at the polls, a lot of people are getting a little tired. I think the Iraqi situation is a problem. And I think the economy is a much bigger problem as far as the president is concerned."

So Trump put the economy ahead of confronting Iraq, but he didn’t speak against going to war. At most he suggested waiting for the United Nations to do something.

There is of course the point that to all intents and purposes back in 2003 Donald Trump was an ordinary citizen and his opinion for or against the war at that time is as little consequences as any other US (or UK) citizen.  But he never spoke out explicitly against the war that anyone has found in the public record (unless Google really is biased against him).

Eloise posted:

Allante93 posted:

Now many may not believe him, but even the Donald didn't support the Invasion of Iraq, which led to the Birth of ISIS!

Except its not true that Donald didn't support the Invasion of Iraq which is why many don't believe him.  At least his public statements don't suggest he was against the Invasion of Iraq.

But, with the Donald not being a politician, he can always use the trump card, just call Hannity, or any member of his Kitchen Cabinet, they will support  his argument.

DrMark nailed it:

The so-called "two party system" is basically one party masquerading as two. They split on social issues, but warfare and monetary policy vary almost not at all, and that is what the Deep State (the people/institutions that actually control the country) cares about. Social issues are largely a manipulation to make the sheeple think they have a voice and that there is a difference.

The Deep State will prevail as always. Hillary is as Deep State as it gets, and the buffoon Trump would be brought to heel.

Eloise, you are correct, it's probably just another flip flop statement by the Donald.

 I should have said even the Donald knows it Vogue not to, have initially supported the war!

I'm not a politician either, not familiar with Aleppo, but I didn't support the Invasion of Iraq either, just ask my closest friends.

But unlike Gary Johnson, I can Name three or four World leaders!

Libertarian Party, Unreal!

Allante93!