or Connect
Styleforum › Forums › General › Current Events, Power and Money › OFFICIAL Trump v. Clinton Debate Thread
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

OFFICIAL Trump v. Clinton Debate Thread - Page 9

post #121 of 724
Quote:
Originally Posted by venividivicibj View Post

^ you do know this is the first debate and wasnt meant to cover all topics right? They do have a topic schedule....

The topics for this debate were "America's Direction, Achieving Prosperity and Securing America."
post #122 of 724
Quote:
Originally Posted by suited View Post


The topics for this debate were "America's Direction, Achieving Prosperity and Securing America."

 

Be grateful that they didn't bring up immigration either because Trump would have hung himself.  Say all you want about Hillary's emails but she was exonerated.  Trump's wall, Trump's extensive anti-Latino comments as well as his anti-Muslim comments have yet to be touched.  And those are just the easy targets

post #123 of 724
Quote:
Originally Posted by suited View Post


Holt did not directly question her about the emails, or about her continuation of lies after the FBI's statement, or about the potential risks of mishandling sensitive information. Nothing about the foundation. The absence of those questions, when you consider the frivolous nonsense that did make it into Holt's questioning, is outrageous. The birther thing is the most embarrassing conspiracy theory to plague the republican party in a long time, but it's not relevant when compared to far more important topics that were not even touched.

Holt also asked Trump about saying Hillary "didn't look presidential" (wink wink). Yeah, nothing to see here. Completely legitimate question and Holt certainly wasn't setting Hillary for a layup and allowing her to play the sexism card.

Holt quickly corrected the audience when they applauded after a Trump jab against Hillary, but was strangely silent every time they applauded in favor of Hillary.

Even with the moderator, I don't think either person had a clear victory. Trump won the first ~30 minutes, but did poorly later on. Hillary's body language was bizarre. At one point she looked like she was dancing. Her entire demeanor and personality are so fake and manufactured it's downright creepy.
You'd have to check the list of questions, but it did seem like Trump got asked more direct questions.

The sexism thing, I mean, voters are concerned about it. Trump should have had a canned line about that, wouldn't have been all that hard to weasel on if he wanted to. Instead he goes and attacks Rosie O'Donnell, which was just baffling.
post #124 of 724
Thread Starter 
Just reading some highlights. I think most of my "drink" rules were met by both candidates.
post #125 of 724
Thread Starter 
So here's an interesting line from Clinton, "...who has said women don't deserve equal pay unless they do as good a job as men." So is her position women deserve equal pay for an inferior job?
post #126 of 724
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gibonius View Post

You'd have to check the list of questions, but it did seem like Trump got asked more direct questions.

The sexism thing, I mean, voters are concerned about it. Trump should have had a canned line about that, wouldn't have been all that hard to weasel on if he wanted to. Instead he goes and attacks Rosie O'Donnell, which was just baffling.


That's the thing that surprised me the most. It felt like Trump had very few canned lines ready for the obvious questions. Did he not let his team help him prepare?
post #127 of 724
The thing that's jumping out to me while reconsidering the debate after the fact is just how many unforced errors Trump made. He has to get the last word in, all the time, and it really led him into some bad places. He got these "zingers" in, like how he didn't pay taxes because he's smart.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jr Mouse View Post

That's the thing that surprised me the most. It felt like Trump had very few canned lines ready for the obvious questions. Did he not let his team help him prepare?

His campaign made this point about how he wasn't preparing. Everyone thought they were just trying to manage expectations, but apparently it was for real.

He let himself be led around by the nose by Clinton for the last hour. Everyone knew that "rattle Trump and bait him into saying stupid things" was the whole plan, and he completely fell for it. Did he land any real blows on Clinton? She certainly got some in on him, and he created his own self-inflicted wounds too.
post #128 of 724
Quote:
Originally Posted by Piobaire View Post

So here's an interesting line from Clinton, "...who has said women don't deserve equal pay unless they do as good a job as men." So is her position women deserve equal pay for an inferior job?

Yeah i heard that too... had to have been a mistake, right?

post #129 of 724
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by venividivicibj View Post

Yeah i heard that too... had to have been a mistake, right?

Just don't know with her. She could well be thinking a working mother just showing up for work is worthy of merit increases.
post #130 of 724
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rumpelstiltskin View Post

Be grateful that they didn't bring up immigration either because Trump would have hung himself.  Say all you want about Hillary's emails but she was exonerated.  Trump's wall, Trump's extensive anti-Latino comments as well as his anti-Muslim comments have yet to be touched.  And those are just the easy targets

She wasn't exonerated from mishandling classified information and lying about it. She was exonerated in the sense that she wasn't prosecuted, probably because it was too political for Comey to recommend charges. Anyone else would have faced consequences. In a way I hope the next debate brings up immigration, both in the context of the southern border and nations known to harbor dangerous cultures. However, his performance last night does give me pause because I'm not sure he will be able to communicate effectively. It takes an articulate person to explain how you can believe what he does without being racist/bigot.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gibonius View Post

You'd have to check the list of questions, but it did seem like Trump got asked more direct questions.

The sexism thing, I mean, voters are concerned about it. Trump should have had a canned line about that, wouldn't have been all that hard to weasel on if he wanted to. Instead he goes and attacks Rosie O'Donnell, which was just baffling.

Saying that Hillary doesn't look presidential is not sexist, unless one thinks it's sexist to say anything negative about a woman. That question had absolutely no place in this or any of the debates and was asked for the sole purpose of helping Hillary. I agree that he should have had a much better response. Ivanka gave a good response to those accusations, which is that anyone who believes women to be equal to men shouldn't be concerned about handling women with kid gloves. This seems like such an obvious point to make, especially considering democrats take this patronizing attitude toward minorities as well. I can't believe Trump didn't flip it on her.
post #131 of 724
Quote:
Originally Posted by suited View Post

Anyone else would have faced consequences.
Most analysts agree that it would have been highly unusual for someone at her level to face prosecution. At most she'd have been asked to resign if she were still in office.

A mid-level career bureaucrat would have been fired, but executives have always played by different rules.
Quote:
However, his performance last night does give me pause because I'm not sure he will be able to communicate effectively. It takes an articulate person to explain how you can believe what he does without being racist/bigot.
Given the number of racist and bigoted statements Trump has made in a non-debate format, you're probably right to be concerned.
Quote:
Saying that Hillary doesn't look presidential is not sexist, unless one thinks it's sexist to say anything negative about a woman.
What is "looking Presidential" supposed to mean?

Trump has a history of making dismissive comments about women, and this falls right into that pattern. Female voters are concerned about it, which makes it a valid question. It's a "slam dunk" for Hillary because it was a stupid fucking thing to say in the first place. If Trump has some legitimate non-sexist explanation for it, he could have just trotted it out and made the thing a non-issue. But he didn't, and probably can't. Instead he...attacked a woman for her looks.
post #132 of 724
What does it mean to look presidential?

Edit: Gib beat me to it with a much more in depth response
post #133 of 724
Thread Starter 
I think we can safely remove, "spray tanned to the point of a Willy Wonka character" as "looking presidential."
post #134 of 724
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gibonius View Post

Most analysts agree that it would have been highly unusual for someone at her level to face prosecution. At most she'd have been asked to resign if she were still in office.

A mid-level career bureaucrat would have been fired, but executives have always played by different rules.
Given the number of racist and bigoted statements Trump has made in a non-debate format, you're probably right to be concerned.
What is "looking Presidential" supposed to mean?

Trump has a history of making dismissive comments about women, and this falls right into that pattern. Female voters are concerned about it, which makes it a valid question. It's a "slam dunk" for Hillary because it was a stupid fucking thing to say in the first place. If Trump has some legitimate non-sexist explanation for it, he could have just trotted it out and made the thing a non-issue. But he didn't, and probably can't. Instead he...attacked a woman for her looks.

I assume you're referring to the judge thing, correct? We heard non-stop that every Hispanic in the country was going to hate Trump because he had the audacity to admit that some people who come here illegally commit horrible crimes like rape. So we're told that all Hispanics will hate Trump but apparently this one Hispanic judge was exempt from that, while also being exempt from something that affects every single human being on earth - person bias. Taking into consideration the way the media characterized Trump's remarks with non-stop accusations of racism, do you really think it's unreasonable to assume that a Hispanic judge might not be able to be completely fair to Trump?

He attacks both men and women based on their looks. It's childish and immature, yes, but I think that's also called equality. Or as liberals call it, "sexism."

Out of curiosity, what's more important in the context of sexism - a few remarks Trump made about women which fall in line with remarks he makes about men, or a presidential candidate with a husband who has been accused of sexual abuse more times than we can count, and both of them being accused by some of those women of using their power and influence to silence them?
post #135 of 724
Can't believe trump tried to go with the "I'm being audited" line...
I do however believe that his lawyers don't think he should make his tax returns public. That seems like good advice from a lawyer representing trump...probably always a bad idea to make your tax returns public...but the tradeoff when you are running for president has been deemed worth it for the past couple of generations.

Saying you will trade them for the deleted emails is just stupidity at this point. Does he know what deleted means?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Piobaire View Post

So here's an interesting line from Clinton, "...who has said women don't deserve equal pay unless they do as good a job as men." So is her position women deserve equal pay for an inferior job?

At least she didn't say 78 cents on the dollar...
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Current Events, Power and Money
Styleforum › Forums › General › Current Events, Power and Money › OFFICIAL Trump v. Clinton Debate Thread