If someone had told me 10 years ago that the first general election presidential debate of 2016 would feature a CNN chyron that said “Awaiting the Historic Clinton-Trump Debate,” I would have thought you were crazy. If you had told me the polls would be tied going into that debate I would have thought the world had gone crazy. But that’s where we are and last night’s debate showed how far we’ve gone down the rabbit hole.
My preview of the debate yesterday focused on the fact that Trump’s “serious” debates at the end of the primaries, when there were fewer rivals, gave us some clues about how he might perform in the main event. He was aggressively incoherent and sometimes completely unintelligible, proving repeatedly that he had absolutely no idea what he was talking about. This has actually been obvious from the beginning of his campaign if you watched his rallies and interviews. It’s just that his personality is so remarkably bizarre that I think the lack of substance is easy to overlook. (I confess I have been somewhat surprised that so many people find his rambling “braggadociousness” appealing enough that they fail to notice that he is ignorant about everything important to the job of president.)
In recent days with the hiring of campaign manager Kellyanne Conway and CEO Steve Bannon as well as sage advice from his pal Roger Ailes, Trump has been tamed just enough to read a stump speech on a Teleprompter, and he’s sounded a bit more intelligible. So there was always the possibility that he would have done a little bit of prep work, read a briefing paper or two and otherwise taken the debate seriously. It is the most important office in the world, after all. It wouldn’t hurt to do a little cramming on the details before appearing in front of 100 million people to make the case for why you are the best person for the job.
Trump’s campaign made it very clear that he wasn’t doing any of that, but I think many political professionals assumed there was a large element of spin involved. He had to have at least done some practice debates, right? But it turns out that for the first time his campaign was telling the whole truth. Last night Donald Trump demonstrated not only that he didn’t prepare but that he has no underlying knowledge of the subjects a president is required to know. He simply tried to bluff his way through with incoherent misdirection, hostility and sarcasm, even as he made the absurd claimed that his temperament is his best quality. He gave the worst debate performance of his short political career. In fact, it may have been the worst debate performance of any political career.
I wasn’t sure whether or not Hillary Clinton would be able to handle him. It’s disorienting to see someone spout gibberish at such an important event, particularly when it’s combined with Trump’s narcissism, as when he oddly asserted that Clinton only started talking about jobs in response to his candidacy, or that NATO created a terrorism policy because he goaded them into it. (That’s ludicrous, of course.) But she handled him well, with humor and authority, proving that it can be done.
The reviews all seemed to indicate that Trump’s best moments were his early comments on trade policy. Which is probably true but it’s actually not saying much. He name-checked some Rust Belt states where the issue is particularly salient, which shows that he may have had some coaching, but his obsession with the subject, to the exclusion of all other economic concerns, is one-dimensional to say the least. In fact, it doesn’t seem to be economic at all, and is better seen as an illustration of his crude nationalism. He shows no interest in workers as people. They are nothing more than statistics that prove America is being screwed over by foreigners. Trump seems to think that screwing workers is an American billionaire’s prerogative.
In fact, Clinton deftly turned the tables on his populism by painting him out as a rich Republican swell just like all the rest, hitting him repeatedly on his business practices and failures. As Washington Post reporter Robert Costa said on MSNBC after the debate:
She yanked him toward the Republican Party. She said, “You’re not going to be able to run as an outsider, you can’t be a populist.” She said, “You’re just like George W. Bush, you’re trickle-down economics like Ronald Reagan, you’re supply-side, Trumped up. This is a candidate whose real appeal is that he’s non ideological, that he’s not running as a partisan Mitt Romney, George W. Bush Republican, and she said “I’m not going to let you.”
I don’t know whether anyone was convinced by that but it was one of many moments that confused Trump and pushed him off his game. When Clinton hit him for saying he hoped for the housing collapse, he reacted with a very plutocratic answer: “That’s called business, by the way.” He made the same mistake later when she pointed out that there were times when he hadn’t paid any taxes by saying, “That makes me smart.” These were just two of many errors, lies and flashes of ignorance, temper and petulance that characterized Trump’s embarrassing performance.
The simple fact is that Hillary Clinton dominated him. The debate was all her thrusting and him parrying over and over again. By the end he was visibly slumping and seemed confused. And since being a “winner” is so central to his candidacy and his personality, the loss is even more devastating.
The pundits are all wondering if that means Trump will bother to prepare for the next two debates (if he deigns to show up at all). But that may not be something he’s actually capable of doing. His former co-writer Tony Schwartz, who knows him well, says that Trump has an extremely short attention span and is unable to study or learn in any concentrated way. But just because he has no interest in or ability to learn any substance, it doesn’t mean Trump won’t make changes. From his comments at the end of the debate and later in the spin room, it appears that he believes Clinton wasn’t “nice,” so he plans to attack her personally by bringing up her husband’s infidelities at their next meeting. He won’t be better informed or more controlled, he’s just going to take the gloves off. But she’s got a much thicker skin than he does, and unless he learns how to take a hit it’s highly likely she’ll be able to get the best of him next time too. It turns out that along with a thin skin, Trump has a glass jaw.
Christ...
She appears very well rounded from a standup position... Quick hands, nice kick, good balance, ground and pound, check that off.
Trump is a serial liar. It's pathological as he cannot even distinguish between his lies and reality anymore. And he has done this for most of his adult life. But I understand ideologically the candidate meshes with the idea the US is falling apart.
Dear Board; there are things to ponder here:
Trump is convinced the US is corrupt to its core. He believes Washington is awash with insiders, and that we have made horrible free trade agreements that have screwed the American worker. Further, Trump believes we need more of an isolationist foreign policy. These are big issues, huge issues. Clinton has a very different view IMO.
Question: Why is it that Boots and Ducks are not on the same team?
Seriously, Trump has taken lying to a whole new level this election. It is rather astonishin
Seriously, I had to wonder if he was coked up.
A rich white business guy who came of age in the 1980s. Not too far of a stretch.
Hillary's numbers among non-collegewhites go WAY up post-debate (in one focus group)
Clinton produced impressive gains in the vote, squeezing the third party candidates and raising intensity of support with white unmarried women and white working class voters. That alone would be a big night. But just as important,
she shifted these voters’ perceptions of her as a person on such key attributes as trustworthiness, having good plans for the economy, jobs, and looking out for the middle class. There was also a huge shift in her overall favorability (+33 points).
The white working class story is almost as impressive.
Their lines ed all through the debate and their favorability towards Clinton also shifted 33 points.
The 2-way vote margin shifted 16 points as the 3rd party vote got squeezed [from 47-38 Clinton, to 57-32].
And at the end of the debate she won her biggest gains with these working class voters on the economy, keeping America strong and having the right approach to taxes. Clinton could not have hoped for better.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2016/0...28Daily+Kos%29
Trash and Trash supporters are so screwed, gonna eat big time.
Trump: "Secretary, you have no plan."
Clinton: "In fact, I have written a book about it.Clinton: "I have a feeling that by, the end of this evening, I'm going to be blamed for everything that's ever happened."
Trump: "Why not? Why not?"
Clinton: "Yeah, 'Why not?' You know, just join the debate by saying more crazy things."Clinton: "Broad-based, inclusive growth is what we need in America, not more advantages for people at the very top—"
Trump: "Typical. Politician. All talk. No action. Sounds good. Doesn't work. Never gonna happen."Trump: "Our country has tremendous problems. We're a debtor nation. We're a serious debtor nation. And we have a country that needs new roads, new tunnels, new bridges, new airports, new schools, new hospitals. And we don't have the money, because it's been squandered on so many of your ideas."
Clinton: "And maybe because you haven't paid any federal income tax for a lot of years."Clinton: "You call yourself the King of Debt. You talk about leverage. You even at one time suggested that you would try to negotiate down the national debt of the United States."
Trump: “Wrong. Wrong.” (He did.)
Clinton: "Well, sometimes there's not a direct transfer of skills from business to government, but sometimes what happened in business would be really bad for government."Clinton: "Donald thinks that climate change is a hoax perpetrated by the Chinese. I think it's real."
Trump: "I did not. I did not. I do not say that." (He did.)
HERE IS THE LINK TO DONALD TRUMP CLAIMING CLIMATE CHANGE IS A HOAX PERPETRATED BY THE CHINESE ON TWITTER.Clinton: "Donald thinks that climate change is a hoax perpetrated by the Chinese. I think it's real."
Trump: "I did not. I did not. I do not say that." (He did.)
The important thing to remember is that the objective truth of Donald Trump's views on any particular subject should not be assessed in light of what he actually said or wrote about it. He's an entertainer, really, and he just says things to drive the brand.
So, the fact checkers can get bogged down in the things that are actually on the record, but what really matters in proving the depth of Donald's Trump truth on any particular subject is what Donald Trump was thinking and, more importantly, what he remembers now about what he was thinking a long time ago.
And, really, in that light, can you actually dispute the truth of his claims to have believed or not believed certain things many years ago?
[/blue]
"you've been fighting ISIS your entire adult life."
I really like that people fact-check obvious hyperbole.
I'm not sure if you're serious or not, but there is a lot of truth to that imo.
The Biggest Choke of Trump’s Political Life:
6 Reasons His Debate With Hillary Was an Unmitigated Disaster
1. The financial markets don’t trust the Donald.
Soon after the financial markets opened on Tuesday, stocks rose in response to Clinton’s performance. Considering she told the nation she would be raising taxes on the wealthiest Americans including Wall Street, that is remarkable. As Marke ch.com reported, the Dow Jones rose “more than 100 points following Clinton-Trump debate.” They quoted portfolio managers like Diane Jaffee at TCW, who said, “Investors have a better idea about policies of Hillary Clinton, so any sign she is closer to the presidency is a boost.” But it wasn’t just American capitalists. The Mexican peso jumped more than 2 percent against the dollar. “The peso has been acting as a gauge of the presidential election sentiment on the theory that a victory for Trump will at the very least result in less trade between the two countries, if not the building of a barrier on the U.S. southern border,” wrote Marke ch. People who know business know they don’t want Trump.
2. Trump’s “biggest choke of his political life.”
The New York Post has been very pro-Trump. But on Tuesday, columnist John Podhoretz wrote one of the clearest analyses of what went down, including a list of Trump outbursts that he predicted Clinton will use against him.
“By the end of the 95 minutes, Trump was reduced to a sputtering mess blathering about Rosie O’Donnell and about how he hasn’t yet said the mean things about Hillary that he is thinking,”
Podhoretz wrote.
“Most important, he set ticking time bombs for himself over the next six weeks…
As she hammered him on his tax returns, he handed her an inestimable gift by basically saying he pays no federal taxes despite his billions…
Clinton quoted him saying in 2006 that he hoped for a housing meltdown because it would provide buying opportunities and thereby goaded him into saying ‘that’s called business, by the way.’”
Podhoretz continued,
“His reply to Hillary’s recitation of the fact he’d begun his career settling a Justice Department lawsuit about racial discrimination in Trump housing was that there was ‘no admission of guilt,’ which is the sort of thing the villain said at the end of ‘LA Law’ and sounded no better in real life.”
He didn’t stop there, but said Trump betrayed his base and accused him of doing the very thing that Trump slams his opponents for—caving under pressure. “Even when he could have taken her down, he was so incompetent he didn’t go for it.
A question about cybersecurity was the perfect opportunity to hammer Clinton on her outrageous mishandling of classified information. Instead, he went into a bizarre digression in which he alternately wondered whether his son Barron might grow up to become a hacker and defended Vladimir Putin from the accusation Russia had tapped into the Democratic National Committee’s emails (which the FBI says almost certainly happened). That has to count as the biggest choke of his political life.”
3. The reality TV star didn’t play to the camera.
Former CBS-TV anchorman Dan Rather no longer has to play the straight newsman and his observations on Facebook can be riveting. The candidates brought their personas to the debate, which he contrasted by first describing their stage mannerisms. “From the very beginning, the body language tonight was striking,” hewrote. “Hillary Clinton, the first woman ever to be on this stage was calm and substantive.
Donald Trump interrupted often and slouched and
sneered as he turned to address her. This is what Trump’s fans like about him, playing the alpha male at all costs.
Clinton seemed completely unflustered, which is what her fans love about her. How this all plays to the majority of viewers and voters at home will be in the eyes of the beholder.”
But then the longtime TV pro observed that Trump didn’t play to the camera, which, remarkably gave the nation an unfiltered glimpse of what a President Trump could be like. “I was surprised by how much this man who has made so much of the means of television spent not looking into the camera, but preoccupied with his adversary,” Rather wrote.
“Trump came across as amped, a pacing tiger ready to pounce on every answer. His interruptions suggests little regard to the rules. He’s itching for a fight. Wants to swing wildly.”
America’s founders hated “demagogues who would appeal to mankind’s basest instincts,” Rather concluded.
“Donald Trump relishes in all of these impulses. For him they are instinctual and a prescription for success… The voters have all the information they need.”
4. Trump launches new sexist tirade against women.
Trump seemed even more out-of-control on Tuesday morning.
First he complained that he had a defective microphone,
As Clinton told reporters Tuesday, if you’re blaming the microphone, you’re in trouble.
But more importantly, Trump ignited
a new misogynist line of attack by going on national TV and attacking a former Miss Universe for gaining weight
—after Clinton brought her up during the debate
“Clinton camp just lured Trump into ridiculing a woman’s weight. Amazingly, he took the bait on national TV.”
Sargent’s WaPo column elaborated, “On Fox and Friends today, having slept on the exchange in question, Trump defended himself this way: “I know that person. That person was a Miss Universe person. And
she was the worst we ever had, the worst, the absolute worst, she was impossible… She gained a massive amount of weight, and it was a real problem. We had a real problem. Not only that, her at ude… Hillary went back into the years and found the girl and talked about her like she was Mother Teresa, and it wasn’t quite that way.
But that’s okay.”
By midday Tuesday, Alicia Machado was on her way to being a media star—much like
the Khan family, who lost a soldier son in Iraq and told the Democratic Convention that Trump had no respect for Muslims nor the U.S. Cons ution. Trump subsequently attacked them, violating an unspoken rule in politics that one never degrades a deceased veteran.
Machado had a national press call orchestrated by the Clinton campaign, and was featured in a Cosmopolitan magazine photo shoot. Once again, Clinton showed that she was the better strategist and combatant than Trump, provoking and entrapping the supposedly great dealmaker.
5. Trump and allies claims instant poll victory, but real conservatives say not so fast.
As expected, Fox News found a tenuous and twisted way to declare Trump the debate victor on Tuesday. Fox News Politics had this headline, “Online votes declare Trump debate winner, despite media consensus for Clinton.” Trying to sound authoritative, their piece cited the most pro-Trump sources imaginable, including the media group run by Trump’s campaign chair. “The Drudge Report online vote had 80 percent of respondents giving the victory to Trump, and a Time.com survey had the Republican nominee leading Clinton by 4 percentage points—52 percent to 48 percent—after more than 1,300,000 votes were cast. CNBC and Breitbart votes also had Trump winning the event, at New York’s Hofstra University. A Fox News online vote had Trump winning with 50 percent of respondents, Clinton at 35 percent and the other 15 percent declaring no one won.”
That last “statistic” is pretty amazing. A third of Fox viewers, who live in that right-wing gated community, agreed she won. Fox then inserted this disclaimer in its report. “The online surveys are not scientific and, in many cases, supporters of either candidate can cast multiple ballots.”
Trump is the candidate warning about voter fraud, after all. But even this propagandizing was too much for the conservative Weekly Standard, which posted a piece telling its audience not to trust Drudge and Fox on this one: The Standard’s Jay Cost wrote, “After the debate, Donald Trump and his campaign have claimed that the Republican nominee won—according to all the polls. One new press release from Trump’s campaign says he ‘leads post-debate surveys.’ It’s not true. CNN and YouGov gave the win to Hillary Clinton, while the Drudge Report poll, among several others, had Trump winning handily. Which of these to trust? The Drudge Report poll is not a scientific poll, and therefore its results do not tell us anything about what America as a whole thought. The same is true of other polls like those conducted by Time, CNBC, and the Washington Times. These polls are of no value for gauging public opinion.”
6. The real evidence suggests Clinton will get a bounce.
In contrast to the Trump bubble, the early evidence suggests that Clinton will benefit from the debate. The infinitely more reputable pollster, Nate Silver, at fivethirtyeight.com said that Clinton got the third biggest post-debate bounce on record, according to a reputable CNN poll.
“Start with a CNN poll of debate-watchers, which showed that 62 percent of voters thought Clinton won the debate compared to 27 percent for Trump—a 35-point margin. That’s the third-widest margin ever in a CNN or Gallup post-debate poll, which date back to 1984,” Silver said. This trend was likely to be seen in more follow-up polls in coming days, he added.
“This time, pundits and pollsters seem to agree on the Clinton win… the correlation between the instant-reaction polls and the eventual effect on horse-race polls has actually grown stronger in recent election cycles, perhaps because the conventional wisdom formulates itself more quickly.”
Silver also tweeted that Google searches about donating to Clinton’s campaign picked up during the debate and outpaced Trump.
“Search terms for donating to Clinton ed somewhat higher than those for Trump during the debate,” he tweeted. “About 2x as many searches for ‘donate hillary clinton’ than ‘donate donald trump’ over past 24 hours, for instance,” hetweeted later in the day.
http://www.nationalmemo.com/biggest-...olitical-life/
Trash!
Trash supporters!
America is still ed and un able.
Thrice-married adulterer Trump ready to attack Hillary Clinton over Bill's past infidelities
When she hit me at the end with the women, I was going to hit her with her husband’s women and I decided I shouldn’t do it because her daughter was in the room.”
it looks like Trump and his team are deciding to go full-on and blatant with that line of attack after all.
Past adulterer Rudy Giuliani thinks past adulterer Trump should definitely go for it.
Trump deputy campaign manager David Bossie, of Citizens United fame, is pushing the attack,
Republican operatives wincing in the knowledge that this is nothing new, it has not worked in the past as an attack on Hillary Clinton—and in this case, it plays into Clinton’s message that Trump is a misogynist creep:
If the thrice-married Trump hits Hillary Clinton for her husband's infidelity, he's effectively taking her bait again.it’s going to be an ugly thing to watch. It’s even uglier when you consider it’s coming from a major party presidential nominee.
"He's walking right into her trap," Packer said. "She's making the case that he bullies, degrades and humiliated women.
And this will be Exhibit A."
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2016/0...28Daily+Kos%29
Trash is SO ED!
If Hillary had the sniffles and right wingers on this board attacked her health, would you have thought it was fair
That's ridiculous.
The "I didn't mean what I actually said" standard for evaluating truthfulness in Presidential elections has applied, literally, to nobody other than Trump.
Trump committed a huge mistake this week, and Democrats will troll him mercilessly on it
the most glaring missteps Donald Trump committed during the debate on Monday night:
When confronted over whether he pays nothing in federal taxes, he not only didn’t deny it — he seemed to openly boast about it.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2016/09/28/trump-committed-a-huge-mistake-this-week-and-dems-will-troll-him-mercilessly-on-it/?utm_term=.46f69120253d&wpisrc=nl_most-draw7&wpmm=1
But but but ... not paying taxes is 100% establishment 1% / VRWC / Repug ideology and strategy to up govt.
The Old Lesbian from Confederate South Carolina even said "It's Americans' patriotic duty not to pay taxes"
It is hardly ridiculous for someone that is not a politician.
I mean Trump doesn't know what he's talking about half the time and probably doesn't even care as long as it sounds good, but what exactly is wrong with this statement: "The security aspect of cyber is very, very tough. And maybe it's hardly doable."?
He's a politician now, and his words -- even those he said a long time ago -- have meaning because that's the choice he made.
They obviously have meaning to you. Not as much to me. The Clintons have been politicians their entire careers. Trump just since 2015.
When you include the part about his son, it sounds like incoherent gibberish, tbh
He should have diverted that question back to Hillary's server, but at that point, he was mentally finished..
Trash is ty politician, a ty human, and a ty businessman. But he's a fantastic liar, racist, bigot, misogynist, xenophobe, con man, inflamer of losers.
Cheers. Actually, Trump's words have no meaning to me, because there's virtually nothing that would convince me to vote for him. Had the Republicans run a serious candidate in this election, I might very well have voted for that person. But Trump isn't a serious candidate (though he may win) and I can't demean myself enough to waste a vote for that office on someone who's essentially a clown.
Oh, and Hillary was a politician when her husband was President? Was Laura Bush a politician between 2000 and 2008? Just curious.
This.
He has nerds on 4chan, Reddit, twitter groups, forums etc sharing online polls so they can bot them in favor of Trump. It's actually kind of pathetic
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
