Judging the debate: a point by point analysis

[Final-Fan]

Norris2k said:

But he didn't asked it this way but said "You supported the war in Irak", and that's a troll. I mean, the questions are prepared for a long time, reviewed, it's not by accident he didn't say it in the correct way you suggest. It's even more disturbing than that, because it adds up to Clinton's baits.

About the vote, at the end of the day she voted "To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against Iraq", I saw it as a disclaimer considering the fact that the probability that Iraq had WMD, or that they would oppose further inspections was about zero.

For Trump's outrageous acts, I'm not talking about quantity. Trump can (and indeed did) hundreds of stupid tweets and talks, it does not have the same impact. Currently, there are strong indications that laws does not apply to Clinton. Trump break some laws, at the scope of his somewhat unsignificant business, and he is sued accordingly.

PS: I wanted to imply that she did not get it from a salary, I already googled it. I'm talking about the fact that she get so much money from speeches we don't even know what they are about (Sanders asked to see them, he did not get them), we kind of know she does them for companies from Wall-Street, foreign companies, etc., but don't know exactly as it is not in his tax return. So yeah, it could be corruption indeed. Frankly, I don't think it can be anything else than corruption at a scale never seen before, but if we get back to the topic which is about the debate, a fair question would be : "You got 21 millions of dollars from speeches to the most critisized and influential companies, and we don't know the content and details. What proves it is not corruption ?". Personally, I don't care if it's safe ground for Trump or not.

We're going to have to just disagree on what constitutes "trolling" by a moderator in a debate. 

I don't really know why you are seeing corruption there.  To me, "I took their money to give a speech" and "I took their money to give a vote" are 100% different things.  The reason people got up in arms about it is because they wanted to see what exactly she was saying because they thought there might be some really juicy statements in there.  "I love you Goldman Sachs, keep it up, you're the best!"  Politically damaging but not corrupt. 

On Iraq:  the whole fight is about "who supported going to war and who opposed going to war", so the reasons she gave at the time for the vote are actually significant.  It doesn't let her off the hook by any means but it's different from saying she was in the front of the pack growling for war.  And for the same reason, Trump's false claims about publicly opposing the war are significant, and the fact that he is now playing up the supposed content of these private conversations should be treated with great suspicion for the same reason.  Even with corroboration from Hannity, I believe it wouldn't be the first time Sean Hannity's memories slanted the way he would like them to have been.  (E.g. Trump says a lot of things and Sean Hannity chooses to remember the right ones.)  Maybe I'm wrong about that; there are several pundits of his type out there and I don't know him, specifically, particularly well. 

As far as "quantity vs. quality", there is plenty to go after Trump for there too.  Advocating going to war over being taunted.  Thinking that attacking the military forces of another country wouldn't mean going to war.  The emails:  the FBI concluded that Clinton did not break the law.  She acted stupidly and arrogantly in a way that she should not have that nevertheless did not break the law.  At worst that makes her no worse than the way Trump seems to do business routinely.  I mean, with the number of times she's been investigated by Republicans over the course of DECADES, intensifying greatly over the last few years with Benghazi, don't you think they would have been happy to find lawbreaking?