Official 1st Presidential Debate Thread

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Maybe Holt was just getting back at Donald for the lie Donnie told about Holt. Oh right, he didn't lie, he just didn't know the facts. lol

Trump is proven right again. Lester Holt after all is a democrat. He outshines Candy Crowley.

He's actually a registered Republican.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Alright, Trumpkins, one area where Trump was the clear winner: interrupting. He interrupted Hillary 51 times vs. 17 times she interrupted him. So...congratulations?

Lester Holt interrupted Trump 41 times and Hillary 7 times.

Zero questions were asked about Email, Clinton Foundation, Benghazi, health.

Well, Trump kept talking, and talking, and talking. And interrupting, and interrupting, and interrupting. So, yeah, he should have stopped Trump. And, I thought he should have done more.

As for email, why do you keep repeating that? He DID ASK HER about the emails. Did you even watch the debate?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

+1.

Trump could have hit hard in several occasions (such as when he said what a shame it is we have third-world infrastructure and huge debt levels--so where has all the money gone), but he simply wasn't prepared or disciplined to drive points home.

She was better last night.

I also wish that he had hit her hard when she talked about being so concerned about hacking and cybersecurity. This from a woman who was using an unauthorized, less secure server in her basement to send classified information.

That server was apparently better than anything the federal government uses b/c it's constantly being hacked.

No, it wasn't. It was less secure than what is used at the state department and there are reports that she was hacked multiple times.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Maybe Holt was just getting back at Donald for the lie Donnie told about Holt. Oh right, he didn't lie, he just didn't know the facts. lol

Trump is proven right again. Lester Holt after all is a democrat. He outshines Candy Crowley.

He's actually a registered Republican.

Colin Powell claims to be a republican too but voted for Obama twice. So you really think a republican would ask zero question about Hillary's emails, lies, pay-to-play corruption, Benghazi and foreign policy disaster? A republican would devote the entire second half on gotcha questions of birther, looks, tax returns etc exclusively on Trump? A republican would go Candy Crowley on Trump twice?

Holt is not a republican.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

That's also what I saw. To be honest, the most disappointing thing about this is how little respect he has for the office, for the voters, frankly for himself. He got up there on the stage and had no idea what first use was. Defended unconstitutional policies. Lied about things that are common knowledge and that, because of the internet, are RIGHT THERE for all to see. It was very hard to watch. I thought she held her composure well considering that it really wasn't a "debate" in the conventional sense of the term.

+1 to all of this. I wasn't going to vote this year. But after only 1/2 hour of that debacle, I was surprised by how much respect I gained for Hillary. I've never liked her, but I was impressed with how she handled herself. Furthermore, I was surprised by how horrible Trump is. (Somehow I managed to never hear him live before last night). He had nothing to say other than hyperbole and name calling. It was embarrassing and disrespectful to the country - regardless of what side you're on. It convinced me I really do need to vote, because we cannot have that as president.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Alright, Trumpkins, one area where Trump was the clear winner: interrupting. He interrupted Hillary 51 times vs. 17 times she interrupted him. So...congratulations?

Lester Holt interrupted Trump 41 times and Hillary 7 times.

Zero questions were asked about Email, Clinton Foundation, Benghazi, health.

Well, Trump kept talking, and talking, and talking. And interrupting, and interrupting, and interrupting. So, yeah, he should have stopped Trump. And, I thought he should have done more.

As for email, why do you keep repeating that? He DID ASK HER about the emails. Did you even watch the debate?

NO, he didn't. Trump brought it up and Holt simply said, "He mentioned your emails, do you want to respond to that?" And then didn't challenge her or ask any other questions (the way he kept arguing with Trump when Trump answered questions).

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

+1.

Trump could have hit hard in several occasions (such as when he said what a shame it is we have third-world infrastructure and huge debt levels--so where has all the money gone), but he simply wasn't prepared or disciplined to drive points home.

She was better last night.

I also wish that he had hit her hard when she talked about being so concerned about hacking and cybersecurity. This from a woman who was using an unauthorized, less secure server in her basement to send classified information.

That server was apparently better than anything the federal government uses b/c it's constantly being hacked.

No, it wasn't. It was less secure than what is used at the state department and there are reports that she was hacked multiple times.

"Reports" are meaningless. There is no evidence the server was hacked.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Maybe Holt was just getting back at Donald for the lie Donnie told about Holt. Oh right, he didn't lie, he just didn't know the facts. lol

Trump is proven right again. Lester Holt after all is a democrat. He outshines Candy Crowley.

He's actually a registered Republican.

Colin Powell claims to be a republican too but voted for Obama twice. So you really think a republican would ask zero question about Hillary's emails, lies, pay-to-play corruption, Benghazi and foreign policy disaster? A republican would devote the entire second half on gotcha questions of birther, looks, tax returns etc exclusively on Trump? A republican would go Candy Crowley on Trump twice?

Holt is not a republican.

Waaaaaaahhhh

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Maybe Holt was just getting back at Donald for the lie Donnie told about Holt. Oh right, he didn't lie, he just didn't know the facts. lol

Trump is proven right again. Lester Holt after all is a democrat. He outshines Candy Crowley.

He's actually a registered Republican.

Colin Powell claims to be a republican too but voted for Obama twice. So you really think a republican would ask zero question about Hillary's emails, lies, pay-to-play corruption, Benghazi and foreign policy disaster? A republican would devote the entire second half on gotcha questions of birther, looks, tax returns etc exclusively on Trump? A republican would go Candy Crowley on Trump twice?

Holt is not a republican.

Thank God we have you here to decide who's really a republican and who isn't!

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

+1.

Trump could have hit hard in several occasions (such as when he said what a shame it is we have third-world infrastructure and huge debt levels--so where has all the money gone), but he simply wasn't prepared or disciplined to drive points home.

She was better last night.

I also wish that he had hit her hard when she talked about being so concerned about hacking and cybersecurity. This from a woman who was using an unauthorized, less secure server in her basement to send classified information.

That server was apparently better than anything the federal government uses b/c it's constantly being hacked.

No, it wasn't. It was less secure than what is used at the state department and there are reports that she was hacked multiple times.

"Reports" are meaningless. There is no evidence the server was hacked.

It's always some secret, ominous sources Trump supporters rely on

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

The world is not run by fairness. It is run by what cards you have to play and CHINA holds all the cards. If you read any history china was the worlds largest economy until about 1800s. You know what collapsed their economy. They couldn't compete with slave labor and their products became pricier. And they thought they can win by closing their border. They have learned their lesson well. They are using their low wage to their advantage just as the USA used free slave labor to their advantage.

In the world of competitive advantages, you need to have big cards to play and win. US is a small market and that is a huge weakness and to offset this you need NAFTA and TPP to isolate huge markets like China.

US is a small market? According to who? Your wishful thinking doesn't count. Here's a ranking of consumer spending power and tell me again that US is a small market and that China is huge.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_largest_consumer_markets

We can consume the most because the products we buy are relatively cheap (because they are made in countries with cheaper labor), and our tax rates compared to other economic power houses are relatively low (Europe. Canada, etc..).

If you force manufacturers to come back the prices for those products will rise dramatically. Who will buy them? We certainly won't be able to export them. You may think that more people will buy those products because they now have jobs, but it doesn't work that way in real life. Wages *never* keep up with inflation.

I recall decades ago when milk was cheaper than soda. We didn't buy much soda. Now, soda is much more cheaper, so guess what the lower income people buy more of? If the price of food and other consumer goods go up drastically, it's not the wealthy people like Trump who will suffer the most. It will be the middle/lower income folks - veterans and senior citizens who live on fixed income.

Again I implore you to actually research the data before talking about things which you obviously have little experience with. On the net, the US imports half a trillion dollars more of goods than it exports. This is a small fraction of the total 11.5 trillion dollars of US consumer spending on goods and services, and therefore "cheap foreign goods" does not explain why the US consumer market is well over 3x larger than that of China. It is simply laughable to call the US "small" while claiming that China at 1/3rd the size, is "huge".

With regards to wages vs inflation, looks like wages have outpaced inflation:

https://www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/policybriefs/pb2011-02c1.gif

We can have disagreements, but let those disagreements be based on facts and not fantasy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Alright, Trumpkins, one area where Trump was the clear winner: interrupting. He interrupted Hillary 51 times vs. 17 times she interrupted him. So...congratulations?

Lester Holt interrupted Trump 41 times and Hillary 7 times.

Zero questions were asked about Email, Clinton Foundation, Benghazi, health.

Well, Trump kept talking, and talking, and talking. And interrupting, and interrupting, and interrupting. So, yeah, he should have stopped Trump. And, I thought he should have done more.

As for email, why do you keep repeating that? He DID ASK HER about the emails. Did you even watch the debate?

NO, he didn't. Trump brought it up and Holt simply said, "He mentioned your emails, do you want to respond to that?" And then didn't challenge her or ask any other questions (the way he kept arguing with Trump when Trump answered questions).

A) that is questioning her about it.
B) Just b/c you didn't like her answer doesn't change that. Should he have gone into accusing her? What should he have done? Serious question.

Frankly, many people don't want to hear about her stupid email -where there were no criminal charges, btw- and view it as a distraction. Same with both of their foundations (which no questions were asked and Trump has a lot to answer for there).

I wanted to hear policy positions. Predictably, I heard almost nothing from Trump on that. ANd what I did hear was, frankly, terrifying.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Maybe Holt was just getting back at Donald for the lie Donnie told about Holt. Oh right, he didn't lie, he just didn't know the facts. lol

Trump is proven right again. Lester Holt after all is a democrat. He outshines Candy Crowley.

He's actually a registered Republican.

Colin Powell claims to be a republican too but voted for Obama twice. So you really think a republican would ask zero question about Hillary's emails, lies, pay-to-play corruption, Benghazi and foreign policy disaster? A republican would devote the entire second half on gotcha questions of birther, looks, tax returns etc exclusively on Trump? A republican would go Candy Crowley on Trump twice?

Holt is not a republican.

Also, why was Hillary on the attack that Trump supported the Iraq war? She voted for it! And then, in another example of bad judgment, she voted against the surge, which really turned the tide.

And when she accuses Trump of hiding something with his taxes, OMG....is SHE talking about hiding stuff? Nothing like bleaching your emails to make sure they stay hidden.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Alright, Trumpkins, one area where Trump was the clear winner: interrupting. He interrupted Hillary 51 times vs. 17 times she interrupted him. So...congratulations?

Lester Holt interrupted Trump 41 times and Hillary 7 times.

Zero questions were asked about Email, Clinton Foundation, Benghazi, health.

How do we know Trump lost? Because both he and his supporters are whining this morning instead of bragging.

There is no real lost or won. She failed first half. He spent the second half defending himself against Lester because she was failing first half. He shouldn't have taken that bait, frankly. The shit-eating grin on her face as Lester went after Trump told me what I needed to know - she felt rescued.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
“I have recently read some comments attributed to me from nearly 30 years ago at a time of very high tension,” the 66-year-old Czech-American told CNN in response to an article that said Ivana once accused Donald of ­raping her.

“The story is totally without merit,” she said in a statement on Tuesday.

“Donald and I are the best of friends and together have raised three children that we love and are very proud of. I have nothing but fondness for Donald and wish him the best of luck on his campaign. Incidentally, I think he would make an incredible president.”

This is a classic non-denial denial. She read some "comments attributed to" her. Which comments? The Daily Beast article contained her original rape allegation and a second statement in which she softened her original statement. So, when she says the "story is totally without merit" what exactly does she mean? Does she mean the story is false? Does she mean that the comments attributed to her were false? If so, the initial allegation or the subsequent softened version? Or, to get technical, "merit" doesn't have much to do with being true or false. I am sure that the lawyer who drafted Ivana's statement is aware that "merit" is roughly a synonym of "to be worthy" not of " to be false". So, was Ivana simply saying the story was not worthy without saying anything about the veracity of her comments?

Are there rape charges filed against Trump? There are against Clinton.