Forums - Politics Discussion - Judging the debate: a point by point analysis

How do you think the candidates did?

Both came out looking strong. 0 0.00%
 
Both of them took a big beating. 6 4.80%
 
Clinton came out ahead. 85 68.00%
 
Trump came out ahead. 21 16.80%
 
The moderator won. 13 10.40%
 
Total:125
Slimebeast said:
sethnintendo said:

Trans Pacific Partnership...  It is a free trade agreement that is stalled in Congress due to election year and the negativity around it.  Bernie raised hell about it during the Democratic Primary.  It is similar to NAFTA but for an agreement with several Asian countries and the USA.

Thank you. But it was unnecessary to use that shortage.

The UN or UN I can understand. Everyonew knows what the UN, EU or the USA is.

But TPP? Como'n.

Thankfully I have heard about NAFTA lol. Would China be part of the TPP?

Just realized I used NAFTA in that sentence.  Glad you heard of that trade agreement.  Right now free trade is being stalled in USA due to protectionism.  I'm not really that supportive of free trade agreements myself but understand their needs to some type of agreement instead of trade wars/tariffs.  Some things should be tariffed though like Chinese steel that they have been shitting on the market for the past couple of years.

http://money.cnn.com/2016/05/18/news/us-steel-china-trade/

http://www.wsj.com/articles/u-s-steel-tariffs-create-a-double-edged-sword-1464740256

Second article argues that because of the tariffs the USA companies were allowed to raise their steel prices on their customers due to the Chinese steel finally being priced so high because of the tariffs.  There are always issues when you get into trade.  There always seems to be trade offs (I know it is a bad joke).



Around the Network
Slimebeast said:

Wow, I didn't know that that scandal become so big that a representative had to step down!

Happened right before the Democratic Convention.  Leak supposedly done by Russia is what some suspected (I believe even FBI).



sethnintendo said:
Slimebeast said:

Thank you. But it was unnecessary to use that shortage.

The UN or UN I can understand. Everyonew knows what the UN, EU or the USA is.

But TPP? Como'n.

Thankfully I have heard about NAFTA lol. Would China be part of the TPP?

Just realized I used NAFTA in that sentence.  Glad you heard of that trade agreement.  Right not free trade is being stalled in USA due to protectionism.  I'm not really that supportive of free trade agreements myself but understand their needs to some type of agreement instead of trade wars/tariffs.  Some things should be tariffed though like Chinese steel that they have been shitting on the market for the past couple of years.

http://money.cnn.com/2016/05/18/news/us-steel-china-trade/

http://www.wsj.com/articles/u-s-steel-tariffs-create-a-double-edged-sword-1464740256

Second article argues that because of the tariffs the USA companies were allowed to raise their steel prices on their customers due to the Chinese steel finally being priced so high because of the tariffs.  There are always issues when you get into trade.  There always seems to be trade offs (I know it is a bad joke).

Yeah. I'm positive towards free trade but it doesn't work if one partner complies but the opposition only does when it suits them.

Just like with immigration and all sorts of things, our politicians always demand from their own citizens to be the morally correct holier-than-Jesus-humans, no matter if we then end up taking it in the nuts. I hate that mentality.

You have to stay in contact with reality. If your competition don't always follow the rules then you have to adapt. We can't always take the morally superior but disadvantaged position. Fucking politicians treating us as slaves.



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.



Slimebeast said:

DNC?

I dislike when people usa shortages and assume everyone else know them. It's so common. Really, how long does it take to write the full meaning?

In lectures and guide books for discussion and rethorics actually they always advice people to only use extremely common shortages. Only use a shortage when you are 100% your reader knows what it is.

How the fuck am I supposed to be able to determine what DNC is? It's impossible to figure it out by myself without using Google and a combination of search words.

Dat National Conference. Dat Natural Cunt. It's fucking impossible.

Could you just ask or google it, instead of whinning because you want to be so assisted you will not write 3 fucking letters in google ? You don't know TPP, you don't know the DNC that made headlines for months, educate yourself, learn how to use google, and take charge of yourself.



Around the Network

I didn't care for Trumps policies. But the ones he understood like business and taxes he could articulate clearly. Once it went to everything else, he turned to attacks, side stepping, and strawmanning. He even went so far as to bring up McArthur for some reason.

I call it as a clear win for Clinton. Not just for the debate, but also for image. All we heard for the weeks leading up to the debate is how Hillary is a frail dying woman with mental problems who flies off the handle and is a warmongering power hungry political machine of doom and the US would fail under her.

But at the debate, she was clear on her policy plans, and pretty much had a answer for every question. I could look at her and see that she could handle the responsibility of running the country. I looked at trump and saw lots of sniffing, water slamming, and it looked like he was really uncomfortable up on the stage. Not to mention there were very little details on any of his plans outside of making america great again. I kinda looked at it like it was his first time at the grown ups table and he didn't know how to act. Which is a disappointment.

If there is a second debate, I'm betting that trump actually goes worse and flies off the handle more. He'll more than likely use it as a platform for attacks about Benghazi, her email server, and other things, when he should be showing the people that he can handle the office of the presidency in a respectable and honorable manner.



Norris2k said:
sethnintendo said:

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.

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.

Like I said I don't think it is right to give her easy questions either.  Matt Lauer should have at least pushed back when Trump lies about never supporting the Iraq and Libya wars.  He is starting to backpedal on it now a bit.  He wasn't like Cheney trying to get the war going but he wasn't totally against it either.  Basically he tried to brag about being totally right about Iraq when he didn't know shit about it before the invasion (his 2002 interviews prove it).  The war began in 2003 and any evidence of clips of him going against the war in 2003 don't mean anything.  The overall public started going against the war around 2004. 

 

 

Holt began one question by stating that Republican nominee Trump “had supported the war in Iraq before the invasion,” a frequent claim from critics that Trump has adamantly disputed during the primary and general election seasons. Holt on Monday, and many in the media before him, pointed to a September 2002 interview Trump gave to Howard Stern in which he said “Yeah, I guess so” in response to a question about whether President Bush should go to war.

When Trump pushed back on Holt, saying “I was against the war in Iraq,” Holt countered: “The record does not show that.”

Then Trump laid out his case.

“The record shows that I’m right,” he said. “When I did an interview with Howard Stern, very lightly, first time anyone’s asked me that, I said, very lightly, ‘I don’t know, maybe, who knows?’ essentially. I then did an interview with Neil Cavuto. We talked about the economy is more important [than going to war].

But Cavuto himself picked up the thread post-debate on Fox Business Network, unearthing the clip Trump referenced, from January 28, 2003 – Nearly two months before the Iraq War began on March 20. In the video, Cavuto asks Trump how much time President Bush should spend on the economy vs. on Iraq.

“Well, I’m starting to think that people are much more focused now on the economy,” Trump said. “They’re getting a little bit tired of hearing ‘We’re going in, we’re not going in.’ Whatever happened to the days of Douglas MacArthur? Either do it or don’t do it.”

Trump continued: “Perhaps he shouldn’t be doing it yet. And perhaps we should be waiting for the United Nations.”

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/09/27/2003-clip-backs-up-trump-on-iraq-war-opposition.html

 

Either do it or don't do it....  Perhaps he shouldn't be doing it yet... Sounds very anti-war to me.  If he wasn't such a jackass maybe he could admit that he shouldn't of bragged about being against the wars the entire time but he can't.  So the show must go on.



Wow! Great analysis! I missed the debate, thanks for writing this up.



           

Really good post. I read every bit of it.

'I talked about it and then they did it, so obviously they did it entirely at my suggestion.' That line from Trump troubles the absolute hell out of me. That is not rational. Was he being serious or was it tongue in cheek?



sethnintendo said:
Norris2k said:

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.

Like I said I don't think it is right to give her easy questions either.  Matt Lauer should have at least pushed back when Trump lies about never supporting the Iraq and Libya wars.  He is starting to backpedal on it now a bit.  He wasn't like Cheney trying to get the war going but he wasn't totally against it either.  Basically he tried to brag about being totally right about Iraq when he didn't know shit about it before the invasion (his 2002 interviews prove it).  The war began in 2003 and any evidence of clips of him going against the war in 2003 don't mean anything.  The overall public started going against the war around 2004. 

 

 

Holt began one question by stating that Republican nominee Trump “had supported the war in Iraq before the invasion,” a frequent claim from critics that Trump has adamantly disputed during the primary and general election seasons. Holt on Monday, and many in the media before him, pointed to a September 2002 interview Trump gave to Howard Stern in which he said “Yeah, I guess so” in response to a question about whether President Bush should go to war.

When Trump pushed back on Holt, saying “I was against the war in Iraq,” Holt countered: “The record does not show that.”

Then Trump laid out his case.

“The record shows that I’m right,” he said. “When I did an interview with Howard Stern, very lightly, first time anyone’s asked me that, I said, very lightly, ‘I don’t know, maybe, who knows?’ essentially. I then did an interview with Neil Cavuto. We talked about the economy is more important [than going to war].

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/09/27/2003-clip-backs-up-trump-on-iraq-war-opposition.html

Just check this link out.  Fox News states 2003 and tries to skip past the 2002 comments.

Sure, but again I don't think the question or the topic is wrong in itself. It's a legit question, and in fact, frankly, Trump deserves it.

But it's clearly a tough, hard question, and not having a single  equivalent question for Clinton is really a fundamental problem but not the most disturbing problem. It's not  just "5 toughs question for Trump and none for Clinton", it's him creating this false narrative about Trump being the only one having a liability, a bad jugdement regarding wars, regarding Irak, because Hillary get a free pass for her support and vote for Irak war, support for war for Syria, Libya, and ISIS rise. And really, I'm not trying to convince you Clinton is worst or whatever, I'm strictly speaking about how massive the bias was in this debate.