2016 US Presidential Elections | Trump Wins

Status
Not open for further replies.
Anybody else notice that Trump leaves the debate floor to talk to his family, but the Clintons (both of them) leave the debate floor to talk to the people in the audience?
 
I'm not sure if Trump lost many voters from before the dabate started. Basically any who left did from between Friday and prior to the debate.
 
RedSky said:
Its certainly part of the reason. She's a Clinton so people will always hate her just for the name in association with Bill.
Click to expand...
But also her own actions as an elected representative. Her hawkish foreign policy, for one.
 
berbatrick said:
?
She said she doesn't like the direction of the Court, indirectly said they're responding to corporate interests only. Obama was really criticised for a lot less when he reacted to Citizens United.
And unlike Trump, she forgot to mention the word constitution or any amendment.
Click to expand...
It's not a secret that the court is just a political tool. There's no such thing as over politicising it.
 
ccGQki3.jpg
 
Audley Harrison v Frank Bruno.
 
Actually, from a Clinton point of view, I think she did a good job. She didn't get dragged down in the gutter with Trump really. It would have been nice for him to implode and it looked like she easily could have pushed him to that, and I'm disappointed that she didn't get him to do that, but she did what she needed to and he didn't.

Trump didn't do anything really, and in truth he attacked Republicans, had a go at Mike Pence and said he disagreed with him, he didn't apologise at all for the video at the start and then he lied and said he didn't tweet the sex tape stuff AND he said he didn't pay taxes. So overall I don't think he did anything at all to help him, only make things worse.
 
They're saying that Trump threw Pence under the bus, but the really fecked up thing is that I don't think Trump had a clue on Pence's position.
 
Trump needed a knockout, Clinton needed to not get knocked out. Clinton got what she wanted.

Shit on a stick debating though.
 
Both of them did nothing all night but whip up each other's base.

And since Clinton base is bigger, point to her.

I'm really disappointed though that Clinton didn't bring up Central Park 5. That story could run and run, unless they have something planned for that and want to save (video of him saying N word).
 
Clinton played it safe.

She didn't want to get dragged down to the gutter. Makes me think they have a lot of additional material to hit Trump with. If he gets anything even slightly positive, it won't matter because he's gonna be hit with a lot over the next week.
 
-He admitted not paying taxes
-locker room talk
-disagreeing with Pence

She's definitely got some attack points going forward from tonight.
 
Hillary played it safe.

Trump managed enough to survive. Possibly going to be seen a winner as expectations for Clinton to knock him out were sky high.

But then she got many attack points in quotes from him to run in ads.
 
Watching CNN's post-debate panel. Has any panelists ever calling Trump out for not having a single clue, not one coherent sentence, no plan on whatsoever, that he's just filling air / time with a random combination of his bullshit bingo buzzwords?
 
Crossie said:
I don't know if that's on purpose but she does bring details, and anytime she does it, I feel the audience get bored. I can be entirely wrong but it seems to me that voters mix up political debates with casting shows and expect to be entertained, not bothered with facts.
Click to expand...

That's what I wonder. My old model UN debating skills tell me that when the numbnuts says something stupid, you answer by sprinkling some details in there and pointing out how clueless he is, in contrast to your own knowledge. Its a terrible shame if this has been decided to be simply ineffective. Because it means that the debate doesn't actually educate the population about government, quite the contrary. If people turn on the TV and see the next President talking about issues in the most superficial manner possible, they must assume that's what running the country is actually like.
 
Red Stone said:
Amazing how Trump bitching and moaning about not being allowed to talk warped how I perceived the debate. I though Clinton was given quite a lot more time to talk. Maybe my brain went into idle mode during Trump's nonsense.
Click to expand...
There was also content in some of her answers, so you needed to use your brain a little.
 
I think Jon Stewart really nailed Clinton's character: 'A very smart capable women without strength of her conviction'. Or at least that's the public image she projects.

There were a lot of moments tonight when she could have held firm and come out a principled person, deplorables for example. She is just inherently risk averse.
 
MarceloFalcon said:
That's what I wonder. My old model UN debating skills tell me that when the numbnuts says something stupid, you answer by sprinkling some details in there and pointing out how clueless he is, in contrast to your own knowledge. Its a terrible shame if this has been decided to be simply ineffective. Because it means that the debate doesn't actually educate the population about government, quite the contrary. If people turn on the TV and see the next President talking about issues in the most superficial manner possible, they must assume that's what running the country is actually like.
Click to expand...
I think that very sadly, that's where you and I are on the same page but millions of voters in the US but likewise in Germany, UK, France, etc. are not. Many despise facts and details. They feel threatened by facts and details as they could go all against one's childish wishes and believes.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.