Judging the debate: a point by point analysis

[Norris2k]

bunchanumbers said:

Norris2k said:

4 direct, tough, prepared questions about the "the birther issue", "the Irak war he supported", "Hillary's presidential look" and "his tax return". And zero for Clinton.

Then, not exactly a question, but he forced him to answer to "Stop-and-frisk was ruled unconstitutional in New York, because it largely singled out black and Hispanic young men", because that seemt to imply "you can't do stop and frisk", "stop and frisk is racist", or "stop and frisk is unconstitutional". In fact it would have a little better as a question. And in fact that should have been Clinton that is stopped when she said "Stop and frisk is unconstitutional", because that is false, and not what Holt was saying.

He could have just as easily done what Clinton did. He could have owned up to the birther thing, said he moved past it and it was time to focus on the campaign. Instead he did what he did. He also could have brought up Clinton fainting during the 9/11 service instead of just saying 'stamina'.

Also Clinton was asked about her server. Its not like it was all softballs for her.

He also didn't bother to follow up her 'stamina' response with Benghazi. Hillary had openings. He didn't take them.

There is no contradiction here, even if it add up  :
- If he want to win, Trump should better prepare, put his ego and insecurity aside, and do a lot better
- The debate was very biased, 5 to 0. I don't think he asked about the server, and if he did it would be only 1 question, without follow-up question like "why did you lied about classified information ?" It was a free pass.