Reply With Quote
Trump had some openings too. He missed like atleast 3 talking points. Hillary just made her points part of the questions asked. She did a really good job.
Exactly how I feel.
Trump had some openings too. He missed like atleast 3 talking points. Hillary just made her points part of the questions asked. She did a really good job.
... because the Repugs will continue to control the House, and continue to up govt be defunding it.
The Repug/VRWC strategy at all levels of govt is well known: up govt, piss off citizens, in preparation for privatization (aka looting by corporatocracy/oligarchy)
Trash would, as an establishment Repug, do everything he could to up govt.
Hillary, like Obama, will not be able to stop the Repug House from defunding govt. Hillary will simply preside over the continuing decline of the America of the 90%.
You know you're fighting against delusional idiots when Trump supporters actually believe he won last night.
Michael Moore Says Trump ‘Won’ The Debate
What does your mom say?
Things are definitely upside down when Trump supporters are pointing to Michael Moore's opinion as positive proof for their points.
Donald Trump is the consummate salesman. Rules, tradition, even the truth are only relevant in so much as they help seal the deal. - THE GUARDIAN
This is really true with many politicians as well. The difference here is Donna boy would be dealing with people much smarter and more powerful than himself, not some carpenter he decided to stiff. You don't negotiate with the Chinese political class like you do with some relative who fell into a large amount of cash accidentally and wishes to do business with you. He had the US court system to use in some of his deals trying to take money from foreigners investing here. Donald's followers think because he has made money, and says what they would like to say in their most stupid moments, he can change things. This is so naive. The game is NOT his reality show. It's not a beauty contest.
Michael Moore says...
Well there you have it.
Trump Didn’t Even Try, But Chuck Todd Charges That Hillary Clinton Was ‘Over-Prepared’
http://www.politicususa.com/2016/09/...iticus+USA+%29
wow
I don't see how anyone thinks Trump won. He started out strong and then got rattled later. It didn't help that Lester hit Trump a lot harder than he did Clinton. Hillary wasn't particularly good, Trump was just worse. He missed some golden opportunities to hammer her on rebuttal and didn't.
No one won the debate. It was not a real debate. But Trump was awful at whatever that was. He had one great moment and that was talking about the trade agreements and he caught HRC at best bending her truth and coat-tailing him and at worst lying and just hoping she wouldn't be fact checked on that one.
Other than that, he was horrific, did not outline any specific policy (or at least not intelligently) and stammered all over the place.
HRC was not great, but she is much more well spoken and has a way better and less invasive demeanor but she is a career politician and that is what she does.
The whole thing was a gossip TV show. 10% real policy discussion, 90% inconsequential bickering, but that's what America wants.
Compared to Obama? Absolutely.
I'm in this election on one issue and one alone, and that's the federal courts (not just the Supreme Court, which, while important, is hardly the only judicial check on our pure politics that is in play at this point). Period.
The rest of it, with these two, is just noise to me. Each of these two would be absolutely buried if either of them were running against someone who was even slightly less unlikeable.
Once the GOP picked Trump, this election stopped being about policy; if Republicans really wanted this election to be about policy, they would have nominated someone who was serious about policy. Dispute that if you wish, but in some circles this morning, we're actually assessing the outcome of a debate by assessing whether or not the candidates were or were not boring.
So, we've got a cult of personality (untethered to any real policy principles or knowledge) competing with a woman who's been demonized for the last quarter century and apparently decided to participate in her own demonization, perhaps because her opponents weren't doing a good enough job at making her seem untrustworthy and unlikeable.
I feel like this is all prelude to the 2040 Debates between "The Situation" and Peyton Manning.
Real policy is something both might want to stay away from. Trump, because he has no policy that can be backed by any plan (he has stayed away from actual plans), and Hillary, because she can actually lend herself to attack on bad policy.
I think the thing we saw is just how easily he can be distracted and lose focus on the point of an activity. He managed to hold it together for 15 minutes, but once she stopped kissing the ring (by calling him "Donald" and not "Mr. Trump," as every sycophant around him does) and once she began suggesting that the "Trump" concept might be just a house of cards, he couldn't hold back.
There is something to the idea of being presidential and understanding the requirements of diplomacy, which certainly means that you have to endure your share of criticism without overreacting.
Just out of curiosity, what sort of judges do you envision President Trump appointing?
This.
Also, anyone attempting to judge this "debate" on any type of conventional metric has missed the point. The only people that matter are the undecideds in specific states. I live in Western Pennsylvania. I know who these people are. They are, to a large part, my neighbors. This election, literally, is going to be decided within 150 miles of my house. If Trump can carry this part of the country by enough votes to counter what happens in the Eastern part of the state (Philadelphia for those of you geographically challenged), he will win the state, and the presidency. His seventh grade vocabulary, and simplistic logic and reasoning WORK here. I haven't talked to them, but him hammering NAFTA, and pointing out Hillary's flip flop on TPP might be the only parts of the debate they even heard.
Trump signs, btw, are about 5 times more prevalent than Romney's were, and there are practically no Hillary signs, whereas Obama's were evident 4 years ago.
"demonized for the last quarter century"
she's been WITCH HUNTED, HARASSED, by VRWC/Repugs for purely political objectives, which is very different from being JUSTIFIABLY demonized.
Benghazi and her email are typifiy the totally fabricated "scandals", just like whitewater, her murdering Vince Foster, WH christmas card list. etc, etc.
I don't see Benghazi (a terrorist attack, with a sloppy White House response) and the emails (a blatant scheme to shield communication, both official and otherwise, from ever seeing the light of day) as similar.
A lot of denial this morning.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions