Official 1st Presidential Debate Thread

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Clinton was well rehearsed, prepared, polished. It was a show. However, Trump was sincere and I am curious about NATO funding as well as NATO anti-terror.

Trump was right. http://money.cnn.com/2016/07/08/news/nato-summit-spending-countries/

Localities and crime. Is NYC safer than pre-Guiliani days? Yes. Have we let down our cities ? Yes. No one deserves to live in these conditions in Chicago. So why did many AA's move to cities in the North like Detroit and Chicago? Jobs.

Trump was too polite. Ford is moving production of specific vehicles to Mexico - 2800 jobs but says those 2800 jobs will be replaced with other jobs in Michigan. Now why not have the 2800 jobs + 2800 NEW jobs in Michigan?

NAFTA. Personally I'd rather have factories and unions and products produced in the USA than continue as we have been. Moosehead {ME}, Surefit {PA}, Carrier{IN}. Loss of manufacturing jobs. It all adds up.

Crash-bundled loans that were based on prior mortgage underwriting standards. Fine to bundle when they were good loans. Severe disconnect.

What I don't understand is how he plans to force businesses to have jobs in this country and why he suddenly thinks that's a good idea. I thought business people were all about bottom line and free trade and job creation. He certainly has enough enterprises overseas. Why is he against regulation businesses to make sure they have fair practices, but for forcing businesses to stay in this country if they can perform better overseas? Why, if he feels so strongly about this, has he not made it a practice in his own dealings? If it's such an important issue, and he makes so much money, he could afford the financial hit he would take by doing so -- he would still make money hand over fist, just not quite as much. Why hasn't he been a leader on this important issue?

I was the first poster. If I owned several manufacturing plants and the bottom line for the company improved if a new plant opened in Mexico/China then it might be done. But if trade agreements [import] offset the labor and capital for a new plant then the new plant/jobs would be in the USA. Trump was not a politician. He had no vote as an elected official. Clinton was/is a politician. Bottom line is many politicians let down the workers in the USA.

The Feds are giving Indianapolis a lousy $335,000 grant to help 1400 people left jobless by the Carrier move to Mexico. 335000/1400=$239.28 per worker. Indianapolis is matching it so it's $480/worker for economic development. http://www.journalgazette.net/news/local/indiana/Indianapolis-getting--355-000-to-help-Carrier-workers-15394155

And that's OK? Our regs should make it cost prohibitive to move this to Mexico. Worse yet there are not many alternatives in that LOB [line of business] to make a decision to buy made in America.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Trump started strong with his trade war talk. That's his strong suit and there's probably some validity in what he says there. After that, he fell apart. His discussion on NATO is especially disturbing.

His discussion on NATO really hit a home with me. It's time to re-evaluate all these Cold War relics and have our junior "partners" start funding at least to their treat obligations. It would be great if they paid their fair share. The only obligation under article 5 is to provide what support each country deems appropriate up to and including military aid. It does not say each country must respond with military force.

Trump is a great thinker. I can't remember any other politician approach this issue with this outside of the box thinking. They will be starting to pay their fair share when he gets into the office.

The problem is, how is he gonna change the situation?You can't force companies to do anything. Most of them have global presence and America is not the largest market. Rest of the world is and especially China. So yeah he talks the good talk about trade BUT there is no solution. When you slap tariff of 25% on things made outside USA, price of things goes up by 25% and Americans pay for it. Sales will drop resulting in millions of job cuts.

He goes to trade war with China. China shuts down its 1.3 billion market to USA, who will lose , American companies. China is the largest market for GM, Microsoft, caterpillar, and hundreds of others. China also holds over 1 trillion$ Of USA debt. Any trade war with China will result in job losses in USA when china kicks out USA companies. China holds all the cards. Trump with his ADHD will be eaten alive by the shrewd Chinese.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Just reported that Bill will be watching from backstage. Probably afraid the camera will catch him nodding off or zoning out again. Can't have the public realize that the person Hill will be relying on for advice has neurological issues, too.

Trump did him and his family a great favor by refraining to go after his horrendous treatment of dozens of women. He was presidential last night and Hillary was in the mud. She apparently had a great memory of what Trump said in a pageant but can't recall 39 times in her interview with FBI.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Clinton was well rehearsed, prepared, polished. It was a show. However, Trump was sincere and I am curious about NATO funding as well as NATO anti-terror.

Trump was right. http://money.cnn.com/2016/07/08/news/nato-summit-spending-countries/

Localities and crime. Is NYC safer than pre-Guiliani days? Yes. Have we let down our cities ? Yes. No one deserves to live in these conditions in Chicago. So why did many AA's move to cities in the North like Detroit and Chicago? Jobs.

Trump was too polite. Ford is moving production of specific vehicles to Mexico - 2800 jobs but says those 2800 jobs will be replaced with other jobs in Michigan. Now why not have the 2800 jobs + 2800 NEW jobs in Michigan?

NAFTA. Personally I'd rather have factories and unions and products produced in the USA than continue as we have been. Moosehead {ME}, Surefit {PA}, Carrier{IN}. Loss of manufacturing jobs. It all adds up.

Crash-bundled loans that were based on prior mortgage underwriting standards. Fine to bundle when they were good loans. Severe disconnect.

What I don't understand is how he plans to force businesses to have jobs in this country and why he suddenly thinks that's a good idea. I thought business people were all about bottom line and free trade and job creation. He certainly has enough enterprises overseas. Why is he against regulation businesses to make sure they have fair practices, but for forcing businesses to stay in this country if they can perform better overseas? Why, if he feels so strongly about this, has he not made it a practice in his own dealings? If it's such an important issue, and he makes so much money, he could afford the financial hit he would take by doing so -- he would still make money hand over fist, just not quite as much. Why hasn't he been a leader on this important issue?

I was the first poster. If I owned several manufacturing plants and the bottom line for the company improved if a new plant opened in Mexico/China then it might be done. But if trade agreements [import] offset the labor and capital for a new plant then the new plant/jobs would be in the USA. Trump was not a politician. He had no vote as an elected official. Clinton was/is a politician. Bottom line is many politicians let down the workers in the USA.

The Feds are giving Indianapolis a lousy $335,000 grant to help 1400 people left jobless by the Carrier move to Mexico. 335000/1400=$239.28 per worker. Indianapolis is matching it so it's $480/worker for economic development. http://www.journalgazette.net/news/local/indiana/Indianapolis-getting--355-000-to-help-Carrier-workers-15394155

And that's OK? Our regs should make it cost prohibitive to move this to Mexico. Worse yet there are not many alternatives in that LOB [line of business] to make a decision to buy made in America.

Even without a vote (and don't tell me he didn't have lobbyists at his beck and call) he had a choice in his own business dealings. He always went for the bottom line, not what would benefit American workers. There are other companies that do not do this and have lower profits as a result. But for Trump everything is about profit. Which is fine for him. But then he doesn't get to take the moral high ground on this issue and make it sound like he's been waiting all these years to be able to manufacture goods in the US and hire only US workers. His words do not match his actions. 30 plus years of business dealings speak for themselves.

It sounds like you are pro-regulation. Regulating businesses to make it more attractive to keep their manufacturing plants or offices in the US is no different from regulating them regarding safety and hours and overtime pay. Yet I always hear Republicans decry regulation and declare the free market is king. You can't have it both ways. Either regulate or don't. (I am pro-regulation myself -- in many aspects.)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can someone fill me in what Trump was talking about with respect to Rosie O'Donnell and what it was she "deserved"?

OMG! Had never seen that. Trump voters-what do you think of it?

I think Rosie is a fat, ugly, loud-mouthed pig and I hope and pray she makes good on her threat to leave the country.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I am really really trying to be open-minded, but I feel like I was watching a different debate than some of you. I saw a poised, prepared, experienced candidate who gave specific policy platforms, used humor appropriately and seriousness besides, who spoke eloquently about important issues, who held her poise when she was provoked, who paid attention to the debate rules but pushed only slightly when she needed to. She didn't come across to me as arrogant or untrustworthy in the least. She looked like exactly what I want in a President.

Versus, a person who gave rambling, incoherent statements that were frequently conflicting and hypocritical even in the same sentence, wo was clearly unprepared and nervous (the amount of movement and water drinking and sniffling was a dead giveaway), who was rude to everyone, who repeatedly lied about things that were easy to confirm, who made racist comments and gave no specific policy ideas and who admitted he pays no federal taxes and has repeatedly filed for bankruptcy.

the main one that gets me is people who think she was arrogant last night. I think she could have been arrogant given who she was debating against, but I didn't read arrogance even a little.

Very eloquently put. Thanks for summing up my views exactly. #imwithher

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Just reported that Bill will be watching from backstage. Probably afraid the camera will catch him nodding off or zoning out again. Can't have the public realize that the person Hill will be relying on for advice has neurological issues, too.

Trump did him and his family a great favor by refraining to go after his horrendous treatment of dozens of women. He was presidential last night and Hillary was in the mud. She apparently had a great memory of what Trump said in a pageant but can't recall 39 times in her interview with FBI.

Trump would only look like a hypocrite. One of his own ex-wives accused him of rape (though she later recanted). He has had multiple affairs. Not exactly Mr. Squeaky Clean here. Bill is pretty gross but Trump is no better.

[Anonymous]

He barely has an education himself since his father pulled strings to get him from a community college to Wharton.

Hey - not a Trump fan here, but wanted to point out that while Fordham is not Wharton, it's also not a community college.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Just reported that Bill will be watching from backstage. Probably afraid the camera will catch him nodding off or zoning out again. Can't have the public realize that the person Hill will be relying on for advice has neurological issues, too.

Trump did him and his family a great favor by refraining to go after his horrendous treatment of dozens of women. He was presidential last night and Hillary was in the mud. She apparently had a great memory of what Trump said in a pageant but can't recall 39 times in her interview with FBI.

Trump would only look like a hypocrite. One of his own ex-wives accused him of rape (though she later recanted). He has had multiple affairs. Not exactly Mr. Squeaky Clean here. Bill is pretty gross but Trump is no better.

Ivana Trump didn't recant. Her rape allegation was made under oath so recanting it could put her in legal jeopardy. There is also a current case accusing Trump of rape.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can someone fill me in what Trump was talking about with respect to Rosie O'Donnell and what it was she "deserved"?

OMG! Had never seen that. Trump voters-what do you think of it?

I think Rosie is a fat, ugly, loud-mouthed pig and I hope and pray she makes good on her threat to leave the country.

Oh dear God. I simply can not believe that people in this country nominated such a vicious man. You, PP, you're a nobody or a troll or just unhappy, but you're not running for president, so I can choose to ignore what celebrities you want to like/dislike/objectify/demean - it doesn't matter. But to have a public figure speak who wants to become president speak this way... I'm speechless.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
I know, I know. We just have to accept that there is a significant portion of the population that has no appreciation whatsoever for the intricacies of international diplomacy and state craft, or for that matter any understanding that it takes knowledge and practice in the field to excel (in any field, here politics).

Intricacies of international diplomacy, which we were promised were going to me "Re-established" in 2008 have gotten worse. But, according to you a $3.99 toy from Office Depot given by her to the Russians (along with 25% of our uranium) is all the proof needed to show how savvy and knowledgeable on "state craft" on foreign policy HRC is.

How absurd.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can someone fill me in what Trump was talking about with respect to Rosie O'Donnell and what it was she "deserved"?

OMG! Had never seen that. Trump voters-what do you think of it?

I think Rosie is a fat, ugly, loud-mouthed pig and I hope and pray she makes good on her threat to leave the country.

You're probably all of those things and just projecting. Just like Drumpf. Will you please leave if he loses? We won't miss you

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What I don't get is how Trump says his bankruptcies and minimized taxes were "that's business", but companies who are moving jobs and plants to other countries are bad. Guess what? It's also just business for them!

That's business but done within the laws. Did Trump write laws? No. Again Indianapolis and 1400 jobs http://www.journalgazette.net/news/local/indiana/Indianapolis-getting--355-000-to-help-Carrier-workers-15394155

By 2011 there was a net job loss of about 700,000 in the USA http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/05/12/nafta-job-loss-trade-deficit-epi_n_859983.html
I'm not a politician nor a public figure and I don't care who presents themselves in whatever fashion in a debate. Oscar winning performance or straight to netflix.

People can no longer pay mortgages and bills due to manufacturing jobs going to China and Mexico. People in DCUM might not see it here but it has happened. Anyone else have family that were foreclosed due to job loss not ridiculous loans?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Trump started strong with his trade war talk. That's his strong suit and there's probably some validity in what he says there. After that, he fell apart. His discussion on NATO is especially disturbing.

His discussion on NATO really hit a home with me. It's time to re-evaluate all these Cold War relics and have our junior "partners" start funding at least to their treat obligations. It would be great if they paid their fair share. The only obligation under article 5 is to provide what support each country deems appropriate up to and including military aid. It does not say each country must respond with military force.

Trump is a great thinker. I can't remember any other politician approach this issue with this outside of the box thinking. They will be starting to pay their fair share when he gets into the office.

The problem is, how is he gonna change the situation?You can't force companies to do anything. Most of them have global presence and America is not the largest market. Rest of the world is and especially China. So yeah he talks the good talk about trade BUT there is no solution. When you slap tariff of 25% on things made outside USA, price of things goes up by 25% and Americans pay for it. Sales will drop resulting in millions of job cuts.

He goes to trade war with China. China shuts down its 1.3 billion market to USA, who will lose , American companies. China is the largest market for GM, Microsoft, caterpillar, and hundreds of others. China also holds over 1 trillion$ Of USA debt. Any trade war with China will result in job losses in USA when china kicks out USA companies. China holds all the cards. Trump with his ADHD will be eaten alive by the shrewd Chinese.

China does not play fair. Sure, GM has a large market in China, but where are those cars made? How many cars are shipped from US to China? With regards to Microsoft, piracy of Microsoft products in China is rampant and the Chinese government has done very little to protect the intellectual property of US companies. On the other hand, it's a matter of Chinese government policy to support a domestic competitor to US companies. Google succeeds just about everywhere else, but not China, Apple sales are good, but loses out to domestic brands like Lenovo, Xiaomi, and Huawei. Even Uber, that company that has shown a willingness to flaunt local laws in the name of growth, has been forced to sell their operations in China to a domestic competitor. There are numerous other examples of this: competitive US companies that cannot compete in China because the market there is not free. China is kicking out US companies as is, what they allow to remain, they cannot do without. So any threat by them to kick out US companies is empty at best.

Lets recognize the situation for what it is: US is engaged in lopsided trade with countries all over the world. For too long we have been the only one operating in good faith. If the rest of the world is not willing to honestly engage in free and equitable trade, then I don't see why the US should continue alone down this road.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Clinton was well rehearsed, prepared, polished. It was a show. However, Trump was sincere and I am curious about NATO funding as well as NATO anti-terror.

Trump was right. http://money.cnn.com/2016/07/08/news/nato-summit-spending-countries/

Localities and crime. Is NYC safer than pre-Guiliani days? Yes. Have we let down our cities ? Yes. No one deserves to live in these conditions in Chicago. So why did many AA's move to cities in the North like Detroit and Chicago? Jobs.

Trump was too polite. Ford is moving production of specific vehicles to Mexico - 2800 jobs but says those 2800 jobs will be replaced with other jobs in Michigan. Now why not have the 2800 jobs + 2800 NEW jobs in Michigan?

NAFTA. Personally I'd rather have factories and unions and products produced in the USA than continue as we have been. Moosehead {ME}, Surefit {PA}, Carrier{IN}. Loss of manufacturing jobs. It all adds up.

Crash-bundled loans that were based on prior mortgage underwriting standards. Fine to bundle when they were good loans. Severe disconnect.

What I don't understand is how he plans to force businesses to have jobs in this country and why he suddenly thinks that's a good idea. I thought business people were all about bottom line and free trade and job creation. He certainly has enough enterprises overseas. Why is he against regulation businesses to make sure they have fair practices, but for forcing businesses to stay in this country if they can perform better overseas? Why, if he feels so strongly about this, has he not made it a practice in his own dealings? If it's such an important issue, and he makes so much money, he could afford the financial hit he would take by doing so -- he would still make money hand over fist, just not quite as much. Why hasn't he been a leader on this important issue?

Yep I was thinking the same

Trump is not articulate and he is not effective at translating realities of international trade into terms that the average American can appreciate. I don't have experience exporting to/from Mexico and Canada, but I know the trade between US and China is not fair and open. Whereas it is relatively easy to export goods from China to the US, the reverse flow is excruciatingly difficult. The tariff rates are high, and Chinese customs makes it very difficult for a shipment to clear customs and be released. We are a US business that has tried for the past three years to sell our products into the Chinese market and has found it very tough to get traction because our products are no longer competitive in terms of pricing and speed to delivery by the time we hop over the great wall of China Customs. On the other hand, I can have a container full of whatever commodity loaded and shipped on a vessel bound for the US in probably 3 days, knowing that US customs will clear it quickly/efficiently as long as all my paperwork is done properly.

As a business that sells to international customers, I am all for free and open trade, but it has to be actual free and open bilaterally. All too often, the US holds up their end of the bargain but the other side does not. This happens in international trade and security, with US ending up carrying the bulk of the burden. Enough is enough.

How do you think this can be changed? China is offering its huge market to American companies. You think it is a win-win if China decides NOT to allow US companies to sell in its market. USA will collapse if china does that.

Also how many Chinese companies are selling in the USA? Can you name any? China can make the argument that US blocks entry of Chinese companies into the USA. China offers a huge infrastructure and scale for American companies to make anything in china IN EXCHANGE for access to its huge market.

US being a much smaller market is the real weakness here that nobody wants to address. This is the natural order of things and this is the reason why China has been an economic giant most of human history and has now reclaimed its top spot.

What cards does the USA have to play with the Chinese? China holds over 1 trillion $ of American debt. The dollar will collapse if they start selling or stop buying US debt. We are a profligate nation that spends money it borrows on needless wars and oil wars of the past.

We as a people are profligate people with less that 5% savings. Chinese save over 30%. So china has much more cash to invest in future. If US has that high a percent of savings we can deploy that money to fund infrastructure growth. But no, instant gratification rules.