Judging the debate: a point by point analysis

[Norris2k]

sethnintendo said:

Norris2k said:


That said, it's incredible for me that Trump got 4 tough, direct (and legitimate) questions about taxes, Irak, the birther issue and stop and frisk policies, and was challenged or fact-check on every single answer while Clinton was not challenged or given a tough question a single time, whether it's Benghazi, the private server, the Clinton Foundation, medical records or the DNC/Bernie scandal, basket of deplorable. For me that's absolutely unthinkable there could be such a massive bias in a presidential debate in front of million people, it looks like a shameless third world country election.

Maybe they were destined to give her softball questions after Matt Lauer basically sucked Trump's dick at the Commander in Chief forum?  I don't agree that she should have been let off hook on some questions considering it is the first true debate.

He clearly had it better at the commander in chief forum, but he was seriously questionned about his nuke policy, about the absence of plan against ISIS, about him telling Putine invading Ukrainia, about if he will be ready on day 1, etc. Still, he should have been asked about the triad, and more pushed on his knowledge. Matt Lauer was soft, but he was not giving a free pass, I believe. On the other hand, it makes sense she had it hard giving the fact  she's under investigation regarding national security. 

But that's my opinion, let's say you are right on that. First debate, 40 days before the election, a much more massive number of people watching, it's not the place and time to give compensation. And really, it is 5 tought questions versus 0, it's beyond compensation.