Total Posts:36|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Trump Weak, Lester Holt a Disgrace

RookieApologist
Posts: 469
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/27/2016 2:24:26 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
http://www.dailywire.com...

I do think Holt was a bit unfair toward Trump in terms of asking tough questions but didn't notice it as being completely overboard. I was expecting it for the most part. But I did notice that he didn't ask Hillary any tough questions and didn't challenge her on any of her answers the way he did Trump. What I did like though, was that he let them go back and forth and only moved it forward once it appeared the discussion wasn't going anywhere.

I was surprised (somewhat) about the actual topics that were discussed. While I figured birtherism would come up, i think way too much time was spent on it. Really, no one outside of Hillary's closest allies cares. Other threads are already saying it, but I think Trump did fine as far as it goes. I don't think he "won" the debate by any means, but he didn't really have to.

He didn't do anything stupid that would sway anyone that was already voting for him, and he wasn't going to sway those voting for Hillary anyway. I doubt he caused any independents to come over to his camp, but I don't think he pushed any away either. Unfortunately for Hillary, she was basically forgettable, even if she technically "won" the debate.

The fact that Trump basically held his ground against a 30-year veteran, former Senator, Secretary of State and two-time Presidential candidate, under what could certainly be deemed unfair questioning, can't be good news for Hillary.
slo1
Posts: 4,308
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/27/2016 2:29:54 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/27/2016 2:24:26 PM, RookieApologist wrote:
http://www.dailywire.com...

I do think Holt was a bit unfair toward Trump in terms of asking tough questions but didn't notice it as being completely overboard. I was expecting it for the most part. But I did notice that he didn't ask Hillary any tough questions and didn't challenge her on any of her answers the way he did Trump. What I did like though, was that he let them go back and forth and only moved it forward once it appeared the discussion wasn't going anywhere.

I was surprised (somewhat) about the actual topics that were discussed. While I figured birtherism would come up, i think way too much time was spent on it. Really, no one outside of Hillary's closest allies cares. Other threads are already saying it, but I think Trump did fine as far as it goes. I don't think he "won" the debate by any means, but he didn't really have to.

He didn't do anything stupid that would sway anyone that was already voting for him, and he wasn't going to sway those voting for Hillary anyway. I doubt he caused any independents to come over to his camp, but I don't think he pushed any away either. Unfortunately for Hillary, she was basically forgettable, even if she technically "won" the debate.

The fact that Trump basically held his ground against a 30-year veteran, former Senator, Secretary of State and two-time Presidential candidate, under what could certainly be deemed unfair questioning, can't be good news for Hillary.

That is one man's opinion. Another man might say Trump argued with Lester. They also might say that Trump lacked the ability to control the debate by not bringing up those topics in question.

Anyone who's end conclusion that the debate was not good for Hillary is misguided.
RookieApologist
Posts: 469
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/27/2016 2:41:58 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/27/2016 2:29:54 PM, slo1 wrote:
At 9/27/2016 2:24:26 PM, RookieApologist wrote:
http://www.dailywire.com...

I do think Holt was a bit unfair toward Trump in terms of asking tough questions but didn't notice it as being completely overboard. I was expecting it for the most part. But I did notice that he didn't ask Hillary any tough questions and didn't challenge her on any of her answers the way he did Trump. What I did like though, was that he let them go back and forth and only moved it forward once it appeared the discussion wasn't going anywhere.

I was surprised (somewhat) about the actual topics that were discussed. While I figured birtherism would come up, i think way too much time was spent on it. Really, no one outside of Hillary's closest allies cares. Other threads are already saying it, but I think Trump did fine as far as it goes. I don't think he "won" the debate by any means, but he didn't really have to.

He didn't do anything stupid that would sway anyone that was already voting for him, and he wasn't going to sway those voting for Hillary anyway. I doubt he caused any independents to come over to his camp, but I don't think he pushed any away either. Unfortunately for Hillary, she was basically forgettable, even if she technically "won" the debate.

The fact that Trump basically held his ground against a 30-year veteran, former Senator, Secretary of State and two-time Presidential candidate, under what could certainly be deemed unfair questioning, can't be good news for Hillary.

That is one man's opinion. Another man might say Trump argued with Lester. They also might say that Trump lacked the ability to control the debate by not bringing up those topics in question.

Anyone who's end conclusion that the debate was not good for Hillary is misguided.

How was it good for Hillary? As a seasoned politician and debater, she was expected to win. She had to do much more to help herself than Trump did, as unfair as that may be. As I said, anyone that was already voting for Hillary wasn't going to be swayed one way or the other, and the same goes for Trump supporters. Trump is already polling ahead with independents, and I don't think many of those are going to be swayed one way or the other over last night's debate.

Really all Trump had to do was not fall all over his tongue. Hillary had a much bigger bar to climb.
slo1
Posts: 4,308
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/27/2016 3:11:49 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/27/2016 2:41:58 PM, RookieApologist wrote:
At 9/27/2016 2:29:54 PM, slo1 wrote:
At 9/27/2016 2:24:26 PM, RookieApologist wrote:
http://www.dailywire.com...

I do think Holt was a bit unfair toward Trump in terms of asking tough questions but didn't notice it as being completely overboard. I was expecting it for the most part. But I did notice that he didn't ask Hillary any tough questions and didn't challenge her on any of her answers the way he did Trump. What I did like though, was that he let them go back and forth and only moved it forward once it appeared the discussion wasn't going anywhere.

I was surprised (somewhat) about the actual topics that were discussed. While I figured birtherism would come up, i think way too much time was spent on it. Really, no one outside of Hillary's closest allies cares. Other threads are already saying it, but I think Trump did fine as far as it goes. I don't think he "won" the debate by any means, but he didn't really have to.

He didn't do anything stupid that would sway anyone that was already voting for him, and he wasn't going to sway those voting for Hillary anyway. I doubt he caused any independents to come over to his camp, but I don't think he pushed any away either. Unfortunately for Hillary, she was basically forgettable, even if she technically "won" the debate.

The fact that Trump basically held his ground against a 30-year veteran, former Senator, Secretary of State and two-time Presidential candidate, under what could certainly be deemed unfair questioning, can't be good news for Hillary.

That is one man's opinion. Another man might say Trump argued with Lester. They also might say that Trump lacked the ability to control the debate by not bringing up those topics in question.

Anyone who's end conclusion that the debate was not good for Hillary is misguided.

How was it good for Hillary? As a seasoned politician and debater, she was expected to win. She had to do much more to help herself than Trump did, as unfair as that may be. As I said, anyone that was already voting for Hillary wasn't going to be swayed one way or the other, and the same goes for Trump supporters. Trump is already polling ahead with independents, and I don't think many of those are going to be swayed one way or the other over last night's debate.

Really all Trump had to do was not fall all over his tongue. Hillary had a much bigger bar to climb.

To his supporters he had a low bar. For some reason the lack of expectations meaning he would do poorly is tied to his outsider status, when there really is no relationship. A master negotiator should have superior speaking and preparation skills. One would reasonably think those skills would transfer to a debate.

A true "undecided" would have very few expectations and would not give this lower bar standard rationalization to Trump.

All polls that control the population and include random samples within the population show Hillary won. It will take a couple more days to get a fuller picture. All the internet polls are unreliable and invalid.
kevin24018
Posts: 1,804
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/27/2016 3:15:13 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/27/2016 3:11:49 PM, slo1 wrote:
At 9/27/2016 2:41:58 PM, RookieApologist wrote:
At 9/27/2016 2:29:54 PM, slo1 wrote:
At 9/27/2016 2:24:26 PM, RookieApologist wrote:
http://www.dailywire.com...

I do think Holt was a bit unfair toward Trump in terms of asking tough questions but didn't notice it as being completely overboard. I was expecting it for the most part. But I did notice that he didn't ask Hillary any tough questions and didn't challenge her on any of her answers the way he did Trump. What I did like though, was that he let them go back and forth and only moved it forward once it appeared the discussion wasn't going anywhere.

I was surprised (somewhat) about the actual topics that were discussed. While I figured birtherism would come up, i think way too much time was spent on it. Really, no one outside of Hillary's closest allies cares. Other threads are already saying it, but I think Trump did fine as far as it goes. I don't think he "won" the debate by any means, but he didn't really have to.

He didn't do anything stupid that would sway anyone that was already voting for him, and he wasn't going to sway those voting for Hillary anyway. I doubt he caused any independents to come over to his camp, but I don't think he pushed any away either. Unfortunately for Hillary, she was basically forgettable, even if she technically "won" the debate.

The fact that Trump basically held his ground against a 30-year veteran, former Senator, Secretary of State and two-time Presidential candidate, under what could certainly be deemed unfair questioning, can't be good news for Hillary.

That is one man's opinion. Another man might say Trump argued with Lester. They also might say that Trump lacked the ability to control the debate by not bringing up those topics in question.

Anyone who's end conclusion that the debate was not good for Hillary is misguided.

How was it good for Hillary? As a seasoned politician and debater, she was expected to win. She had to do much more to help herself than Trump did, as unfair as that may be. As I said, anyone that was already voting for Hillary wasn't going to be swayed one way or the other, and the same goes for Trump supporters. Trump is already polling ahead with independents, and I don't think many of those are going to be swayed one way or the other over last night's debate.

Really all Trump had to do was not fall all over his tongue. Hillary had a much bigger bar to climb.

To his supporters he had a low bar. For some reason the lack of expectations meaning he would do poorly is tied to his outsider status, when there really is no relationship. A master negotiator should have superior speaking and preparation skills. One would reasonably think those skills would transfer to a debate.

A true "undecided" would have very few expectations and would not give this lower bar standard rationalization to Trump.

All polls that control the population and include random samples within the population show Hillary won. It will take a couple more days to get a fuller picture. All the internet polls are unreliable and invalid.

all that really matters is who gained more voters which doesn't necessarily mean to the victor go the spoils.
NHN
Posts: 624
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/27/2016 3:15:54 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/27/2016 2:29:54 PM, slo1 wrote:
Anyone who's end conclusion that the debate was not good for Hillary is misguided.
Trump came off as incompetent, incoherent and unprepared. Judge Napolitano at Fox News was relentless (http://www.realclearpolitics.com...).

And I think Trump's poor preparation has to do with him being unable to learn cold facts and new tricks. He is a 70-year-old with no attention span, who incidentally hasn't read a book in decades; he doesn't even know where to start when attempting to string together intelligible sentences.
TBR
Posts: 9,991
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/27/2016 3:32:49 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
I was surprised (somewhat) about the actual topics that were discussed. While I figured birtherism would come up, i think way too much time was spent on it. Really, no one outside of Hillary's closest allies cares. Other threads are already saying it, but I think Trump did fine as far as it goes. I don't think he "won" the debate by any means, but he didn't really have to.

So, no one cares that Trump chased the stupidest presidential conspiracy theory of the last 50 years, launched his political career off it, and now wants to tell us it was Clinton who started it all?
kevin24018
Posts: 1,804
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/27/2016 3:40:43 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/27/2016 3:15:54 PM, NHN wrote:
At 9/27/2016 2:29:54 PM, slo1 wrote:
Anyone who's end conclusion that the debate was not good for Hillary is misguided.
Trump came off as incompetent, incoherent and unprepared. Judge Napolitano at Fox News was relentless (http://www.realclearpolitics.com...).

And I think Trump's poor preparation has to do with him being unable to learn cold facts and new tricks. He is a 70-year-old with no attention span, who incidentally hasn't read a book in decades; he doesn't even know where to start when attempting to string together intelligible sentences.

it has to do with his arrogance imo, I don't think she did particularly well, she seemed rather robotic and stiff, I didn't watch the whole thing, maybe she lacks the killer instinct to take advantage of a much weaker person I don't know, but much like mma which I like to watch, never leave it in the hands of the judges, finish it, I don't think she finished it.
TBR
Posts: 9,991
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/27/2016 3:49:16 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/27/2016 3:40:43 PM, kevin24018 wrote:
At 9/27/2016 3:15:54 PM, NHN wrote:
At 9/27/2016 2:29:54 PM, slo1 wrote:
Anyone who's end conclusion that the debate was not good for Hillary is misguided.
Trump came off as incompetent, incoherent and unprepared. Judge Napolitano at Fox News was relentless (http://www.realclearpolitics.com...).

And I think Trump's poor preparation has to do with him being unable to learn cold facts and new tricks. He is a 70-year-old with no attention span, who incidentally hasn't read a book in decades; he doesn't even know where to start when attempting to string together intelligible sentences.

it has to do with his arrogance imo, I don't think she did particularly well, she seemed rather robotic and stiff, I didn't watch the whole thing, maybe she lacks the killer instinct to take advantage of a much weaker person I don't know, but much like mma which I like to watch, never leave it in the hands of the judges, finish it, I don't think she finished it.

Well, here is the problem. This is NOT "MMA", its politics at the highest level. Trump got this far because the far right of the base loves the bickering match, and Trump did that well. Talk about ugly wife's, "low energy" - typical name calling. He, Trump, can't move past that. He even had to bring Rosie O'Donnell back in towards the end of the debate "I think everyone can agree - she deserved it" said Trump. The people outside the reality TV world sees this as childish bickering, and Trump has little else to offer.

Basically, his routine is wearing thin, and can't find new material.
NHN
Posts: 624
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/27/2016 3:53:21 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/27/2016 3:40:43 PM, kevin24018 wrote:
At 9/27/2016 3:15:54 PM, NHN wrote:
At 9/27/2016 2:29:54 PM, slo1 wrote:
Anyone who's end conclusion that the debate was not good for Hillary is misguided.
Trump came off as incompetent, incoherent and unprepared. Judge Napolitano at Fox News was relentless (http://www.realclearpolitics.com...).

And I think Trump's poor preparation has to do with him being unable to learn cold facts and new tricks. He is a 70-year-old with no attention span, who incidentally hasn't read a book in decades; he doesn't even know where to start when attempting to string together intelligible sentences.
it has to do with his arrogance imo, I don't think she did particularly well, she seemed rather robotic and stiff, I didn't watch the whole thing, maybe she lacks the killer instinct to take advantage of a much weaker person I don't know, but much like mma which I like to watch, never leave it in the hands of the judges, finish it, I don't think she finished it.
Clinton seemed stiff because she is stiff. And she is at her worst when she attempts wordplay and light humor. The "trumped-up, trickle-down" retort made me gag. Whoever came up with that should be fired.

And I prefer baseball to MMA. Clinton never knocked it out of the park. We saw a boring yet steady victory with a few sac bunts and sac flies along the way; no defensive errors. Trump got in a few hits but no runs and his pitching was a bit wild at times. "You've been fighting ISIS your whole life!" was particularly embarrassing, pathetic.
kevin24018
Posts: 1,804
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/27/2016 4:09:09 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/27/2016 3:53:21 PM, NHN wrote:
At 9/27/2016 3:40:43 PM, kevin24018 wrote:
At 9/27/2016 3:15:54 PM, NHN wrote:
At 9/27/2016 2:29:54 PM, slo1 wrote:
Anyone who's end conclusion that the debate was not good for Hillary is misguided.
Trump came off as incompetent, incoherent and unprepared. Judge Napolitano at Fox News was relentless (http://www.realclearpolitics.com...).

And I think Trump's poor preparation has to do with him being unable to learn cold facts and new tricks. He is a 70-year-old with no attention span, who incidentally hasn't read a book in decades; he doesn't even know where to start when attempting to string together intelligible sentences.
it has to do with his arrogance imo, I don't think she did particularly well, she seemed rather robotic and stiff, I didn't watch the whole thing, maybe she lacks the killer instinct to take advantage of a much weaker person I don't know, but much like mma which I like to watch, never leave it in the hands of the judges, finish it, I don't think she finished it.
Clinton seemed stiff because she is stiff. And she is at her worst when she attempts wordplay and light humor. The "trumped-up, trickle-down" retort made me gag. Whoever came up with that should be fired.

yeah the both repeated the same lines they have used before

And I prefer baseball to MMA. Clinton never knocked it out of the park. We saw a boring yet steady victory with a few sac bunts and sac flies along the way; no defensive errors. Trump got in a few hits but no runs and his pitching was a bit wild at times. "You've been fighting ISIS your whole life!" was particularly embarrassing, pathetic.

sometimes baseball evolves into a mma like group fight, that count? lol but yes your analogy is better, this debate and baseball are both boring to watch (zing!!) :)
Stymie13
Posts: 2,162
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/27/2016 4:23:07 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
Who won? Neither. Who lost? The United States.

Every criticism heard against either side has been remarkably predictable. What did I personally hear in this debate? Exactly what was expected: not 1 thing of substance.
NHN
Posts: 624
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/27/2016 4:56:55 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/27/2016 4:23:07 PM, Stymie13 wrote:
Who won? Neither. Who lost? The United States.

Every criticism heard against either side has been remarkably predictable. What did I personally hear in this debate? Exactly what was expected: not 1 thing of substance.
The only thing separating the two candidates on matters of actual policy is the future selection of justices to the Supreme Court. Here there is a potential for clashing visions.

Trump has indicated that he will lean on the Heritage Foundation's choice and appoint a "constructionist" or "textualist" (original intent) in the spirit of Scalia. Clinton, on the other hand, will lean on the ranks of liberal Ivy League judges, who prefer the "open text" interpretation (no original intent) particular to Breyer, Kagan or Bader Ginsburg.

That divide -- the existence or nonexistence of original intent in the Constitution -- is directly decided as a result of this election. As such, it should be debated. But in its stead we are fed with the pointless tirade of taxation, spending, terrorism, border control, immigration, etc., which are all subject to the complex technocracy/bureaucracy that is the modern state.

In the last analysis, however, Trump may be too ignorant to argue in favor of sustaining the original intent of the Constitution, and Clinton too smart to raise the issue.
Stymie13
Posts: 2,162
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/27/2016 6:00:16 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/27/2016 4:56:55 PM, NHN wrote:
At 9/27/2016 4:23:07 PM, Stymie13 wrote:
Who won? Neither. Who lost? The United States.

Every criticism heard against either side has been remarkably predictable. What did I personally hear in this debate? Exactly what was expected: not 1 thing of substance.
The only thing separating the two candidates on matters of actual policy is the future selection of justices to the Supreme Court. Here there is a potential for clashing visions.

Trump has indicated that he will lean on the Heritage Foundation's choice and appoint a "constructionist" or "textualist" (original intent) in the spirit of Scalia. Clinton, on the other hand, will lean on the ranks of liberal Ivy League judges, who prefer the "open text" interpretation (no original intent) particular to Breyer, Kagan or Bader Ginsburg.

That divide -- the existence or nonexistence of original intent in the Constitution -- is directly decided as a result of this election. As such, it should be debated. But in its stead we are fed with the pointless tirade of taxation, spending, terrorism, border control, immigration, etc., which are all subject to the complex technocracy/bureaucracy that is the modern state.

In the last analysis, however, Trump may be too ignorant to argue in favor of sustaining the original intent of the Constitution, and Clinton too smart to raise the issue.

I have an issue with Obama not nominating someone... I don't like open positions, I don't like the 'political football', and even though I am no Obama fan, it would be funny to watch the Republicans delay the vote instead of just take the up or down which they would win anyway.

Some say I'm apathetic... far from the truth. I am disgusted by the incompetence of elected officials and lack of integrity.

About Scalia... isn't it funny how, when I was in school (90's) the term was constructionist, then it changed to originalist and morphed to textualist. Ironic and comedic, if not so damn serious.
kevin24018
Posts: 1,804
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/27/2016 6:07:15 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
can anyone verify the number of questions Holt asked each one? saw something like 15-2 but not sure what was included in that, he started out pretty impartial, but some sources are saying quite the opposite.
Burzmali
Posts: 1,310
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/27/2016 6:15:02 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/27/2016 6:00:16 PM, Stymie13 wrote:
At 9/27/2016 4:56:55 PM, NHN wrote:
At 9/27/2016 4:23:07 PM, Stymie13 wrote:
Who won? Neither. Who lost? The United States.

Every criticism heard against either side has been remarkably predictable. What did I personally hear in this debate? Exactly what was expected: not 1 thing of substance.
The only thing separating the two candidates on matters of actual policy is the future selection of justices to the Supreme Court. Here there is a potential for clashing visions.

Trump has indicated that he will lean on the Heritage Foundation's choice and appoint a "constructionist" or "textualist" (original intent) in the spirit of Scalia. Clinton, on the other hand, will lean on the ranks of liberal Ivy League judges, who prefer the "open text" interpretation (no original intent) particular to Breyer, Kagan or Bader Ginsburg.

That divide -- the existence or nonexistence of original intent in the Constitution -- is directly decided as a result of this election. As such, it should be debated. But in its stead we are fed with the pointless tirade of taxation, spending, terrorism, border control, immigration, etc., which are all subject to the complex technocracy/bureaucracy that is the modern state.

In the last analysis, however, Trump may be too ignorant to argue in favor of sustaining the original intent of the Constitution, and Clinton too smart to raise the issue.

I have an issue with Obama not nominating someone... I don't like open positions, I don't like the 'political football', and even though I am no Obama fan, it would be funny to watch the Republicans delay the vote instead of just take the up or down which they would win anyway.

What are you talking about? Obama nominated Merrick Garland. The senate refuses to have the vote on him. What do you mean you have a problem with him not nominating someone?

Some say I'm apathetic... far from the truth. I am disgusted by the incompetence of elected officials and lack of integrity.

About Scalia... isn't it funny how, when I was in school (90's) the term was constructionist, then it changed to originalist and morphed to textualist. Ironic and comedic, if not so damn serious.
vortex86
Posts: 559
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/27/2016 6:36:06 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/27/2016 2:29:54 PM, slo1 wrote:
At 9/27/2016 2:24:26 PM, RookieApologist wrote:
http://www.dailywire.com...

I do think Holt was a bit unfair toward Trump in terms of asking tough questions but didn't notice it as being completely overboard. I was expecting it for the most part. But I did notice that he didn't ask Hillary any tough questions and didn't challenge her on any of her answers the way he did Trump. What I did like though, was that he let them go back and forth and only moved it forward once it appeared the discussion wasn't going anywhere.

I was surprised (somewhat) about the actual topics that were discussed. While I figured birtherism would come up, i think way too much time was spent on it. Really, no one outside of Hillary's closest allies cares. Other threads are already saying it, but I think Trump did fine as far as it goes. I don't think he "won" the debate by any means, but he didn't really have to.

He didn't do anything stupid that would sway anyone that was already voting for him, and he wasn't going to sway those voting for Hillary anyway. I doubt he caused any independents to come over to his camp, but I don't think he pushed any away either. Unfortunately for Hillary, she was basically forgettable, even if she technically "won" the debate.

The fact that Trump basically held his ground against a 30-year veteran, former Senator, Secretary of State and two-time Presidential candidate, under what could certainly be deemed unfair questioning, can't be good news for Hillary.

That is one man's opinion. Another man might say Trump argued with Lester. They also might say that Trump lacked the ability to control the debate by not bringing up those topics in question.

Anyone who's end conclusion that the debate was not good for Hillary is misguided.

her goal of the night was not to be more knowledgeable of policy or foreign affairs as it was expected. She was supposed to connect more with the American people and be more likable. I wouldn't really say her robotic scripted sounding answers seemed genuine or likable. There were a few moments that she had that had a glimmer of being personable.. but Trump's goal was to not destroy his campaign and I'd say he accomplished that while she didn't accomplish connecting with Americans.
RookieApologist
Posts: 469
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/27/2016 6:45:06 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/27/2016 6:36:06 PM, vortex86 wrote:
At 9/27/2016 2:29:54 PM, slo1 wrote:
At 9/27/2016 2:24:26 PM, RookieApologist wrote:
http://www.dailywire.com...

I do think Holt was a bit unfair toward Trump in terms of asking tough questions but didn't notice it as being completely overboard. I was expecting it for the most part. But I did notice that he didn't ask Hillary any tough questions and didn't challenge her on any of her answers the way he did Trump. What I did like though, was that he let them go back and forth and only moved it forward once it appeared the discussion wasn't going anywhere.

I was surprised (somewhat) about the actual topics that were discussed. While I figured birtherism would come up, i think way too much time was spent on it. Really, no one outside of Hillary's closest allies cares. Other threads are already saying it, but I think Trump did fine as far as it goes. I don't think he "won" the debate by any means, but he didn't really have to.

He didn't do anything stupid that would sway anyone that was already voting for him, and he wasn't going to sway those voting for Hillary anyway. I doubt he caused any independents to come over to his camp, but I don't think he pushed any away either. Unfortunately for Hillary, she was basically forgettable, even if she technically "won" the debate.

The fact that Trump basically held his ground against a 30-year veteran, former Senator, Secretary of State and two-time Presidential candidate, under what could certainly be deemed unfair questioning, can't be good news for Hillary.

That is one man's opinion. Another man might say Trump argued with Lester. They also might say that Trump lacked the ability to control the debate by not bringing up those topics in question.

Anyone who's end conclusion that the debate was not good for Hillary is misguided.

her goal of the night was not to be more knowledgeable of policy or foreign affairs as it was expected. She was supposed to connect more with the American people and be more likable. I wouldn't really say her robotic scripted sounding answers seemed genuine or likable. There were a few moments that she had that had a glimmer of being personable.. but Trump's goal was to not destroy his campaign and I'd say he accomplished that while she didn't accomplish connecting with Americans.

Agreed, basically what I was trying to say, but I think you said it better.
Burzmali
Posts: 1,310
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/27/2016 6:48:24 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
If I supported a candidate whose only expectation during a debate was to not sh!t the proverbial bed, I'd be embarrassed of my choice of candidate.
vortex86
Posts: 559
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/27/2016 6:51:41 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/27/2016 6:48:24 PM, Burzmali wrote:
If I supported a candidate whose only expectation during a debate was to not sh!t the proverbial bed, I'd be embarrassed of my choice of candidate.

It's not that the expectations are that low. It's that he has forward momentum and has a steady rise whereas she has been incognito and the only thing on people's minds are her transgressions. Trump is speaking more policy on the campaign trail and she did nothing but prepare for this debate. It was basically dull and uneventful, so that leaves you with the events prior to the debate as there was nothing of value gained from the debate.
Stymie13
Posts: 2,162
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/27/2016 6:54:25 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/27/2016 6:15:02 PM, Burzmali wrote:
At 9/27/2016 6:00:16 PM, Stymie13 wrote:
At 9/27/2016 4:56:55 PM, NHN wrote:
At 9/27/2016 4:23:07 PM, Stymie13 wrote:
Who won? Neither. Who lost? The United States.

Every criticism heard against either side has been remarkably predictable. What did I personally hear in this debate? Exactly what was expected: not 1 thing of substance.
The only thing separating the two candidates on matters of actual policy is the future selection of justices to the Supreme Court. Here there is a potential for clashing visions.

Trump has indicated that he will lean on the Heritage Foundation's choice and appoint a "constructionist" or "textualist" (original intent) in the spirit of Scalia. Clinton, on the other hand, will lean on the ranks of liberal Ivy League judges, who prefer the "open text" interpretation (no original intent) particular to Breyer, Kagan or Bader Ginsburg.

That divide -- the existence or nonexistence of original intent in the Constitution -- is directly decided as a result of this election. As such, it should be debated. But in its stead we are fed with the pointless tirade of taxation, spending, terrorism, border control, immigration, etc., which are all subject to the complex technocracy/bureaucracy that is the modern state.

In the last analysis, however, Trump may be too ignorant to argue in favor of sustaining the original intent of the Constitution, and Clinton too smart to raise the issue.

I have an issue with Obama not nominating someone... I don't like open positions, I don't like the 'political football', and even though I am no Obama fan, it would be funny to watch the Republicans delay the vote instead of just take the up or down which they would win anyway.

What are you talking about? Obama nominated Merrick Garland. The senate refuses to have the vote on him. What do you mean you have a problem with him not nominating someone?

Some say I'm apathetic... far from the truth. I am disgusted by the incompetence of elected officials and lack of integrity.

About Scalia... isn't it funny how, when I was in school (90's) the term was constructionist, then it changed to originalist and morphed to textualist. Ironic and comedic, if not so damn serious.

Thanks for the correction... so much crap's filled the airwaves since then, resulting in me tuning out till after the conventions, I completely forgot about him.

Thanks for the check :) (some CAN admit when they make a mistake)
Burzmali
Posts: 1,310
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/27/2016 6:54:42 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/27/2016 6:51:41 PM, vortex86 wrote:
At 9/27/2016 6:48:24 PM, Burzmali wrote:
If I supported a candidate whose only expectation during a debate was to not sh!t the proverbial bed, I'd be embarrassed of my choice of candidate.

It's not that the expectations are that low. It's that he has forward momentum and has a steady rise whereas she has been incognito and the only thing on people's minds are her transgressions. Trump is speaking more policy on the campaign trail and she did nothing but prepare for this debate. It was basically dull and uneventful, so that leaves you with the events prior to the debate as there was nothing of value gained from the debate.

I guess we have different ideas about what "not destroy the campaign" means, then.
Burzmali
Posts: 1,310
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/27/2016 6:55:47 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/27/2016 6:54:25 PM, Stymie13 wrote:
At 9/27/2016 6:15:02 PM, Burzmali wrote:
At 9/27/2016 6:00:16 PM, Stymie13 wrote:
At 9/27/2016 4:56:55 PM, NHN wrote:
At 9/27/2016 4:23:07 PM, Stymie13 wrote:
Who won? Neither. Who lost? The United States.

Every criticism heard against either side has been remarkably predictable. What did I personally hear in this debate? Exactly what was expected: not 1 thing of substance.
The only thing separating the two candidates on matters of actual policy is the future selection of justices to the Supreme Court. Here there is a potential for clashing visions.

Trump has indicated that he will lean on the Heritage Foundation's choice and appoint a "constructionist" or "textualist" (original intent) in the spirit of Scalia. Clinton, on the other hand, will lean on the ranks of liberal Ivy League judges, who prefer the "open text" interpretation (no original intent) particular to Breyer, Kagan or Bader Ginsburg.

That divide -- the existence or nonexistence of original intent in the Constitution -- is directly decided as a result of this election. As such, it should be debated. But in its stead we are fed with the pointless tirade of taxation, spending, terrorism, border control, immigration, etc., which are all subject to the complex technocracy/bureaucracy that is the modern state.

In the last analysis, however, Trump may be too ignorant to argue in favor of sustaining the original intent of the Constitution, and Clinton too smart to raise the issue.

I have an issue with Obama not nominating someone... I don't like open positions, I don't like the 'political football', and even though I am no Obama fan, it would be funny to watch the Republicans delay the vote instead of just take the up or down which they would win anyway.

What are you talking about? Obama nominated Merrick Garland. The senate refuses to have the vote on him. What do you mean you have a problem with him not nominating someone?

Some say I'm apathetic... far from the truth. I am disgusted by the incompetence of elected officials and lack of integrity.

About Scalia... isn't it funny how, when I was in school (90's) the term was constructionist, then it changed to originalist and morphed to textualist. Ironic and comedic, if not so damn serious.

Thanks for the correction... so much crap's filled the airwaves since then, resulting in me tuning out till after the conventions, I completely forgot about him.

Thanks for the check :) (some CAN admit when they make a mistake)

Much appreciated. This site is sorely lacking in that area. :)
vortex86
Posts: 559
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/27/2016 6:56:07 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/27/2016 6:54:42 PM, Burzmali wrote:
At 9/27/2016 6:51:41 PM, vortex86 wrote:
At 9/27/2016 6:48:24 PM, Burzmali wrote:
If I supported a candidate whose only expectation during a debate was to not sh!t the proverbial bed, I'd be embarrassed of my choice of candidate.

It's not that the expectations are that low. It's that he has forward momentum and has a steady rise whereas she has been incognito and the only thing on people's minds are her transgressions. Trump is speaking more policy on the campaign trail and she did nothing but prepare for this debate. It was basically dull and uneventful, so that leaves you with the events prior to the debate as there was nothing of value gained from the debate.

I guess we have different ideas about what "not destroy the campaign" means, then.

Well, this is the final stretch and Trump's pitfalls in the past have been of his own doing. So with less than 45 days remaining any major gaffes would be destroying his campaign resulting in a loss.
slo1
Posts: 4,308
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/27/2016 7:16:44 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/27/2016 3:15:54 PM, NHN wrote:
At 9/27/2016 2:29:54 PM, slo1 wrote:
Anyone who's end conclusion that the debate was not good for Hillary is misguided.
Trump came off as incompetent, incoherent and unprepared. Judge Napolitano at Fox News was relentless (http://www.realclearpolitics.com...).

And I think Trump's poor preparation has to do with him being unable to learn cold facts and new tricks. He is a 70-year-old with no attention span, who incidentally hasn't read a book in decades; he doesn't even know where to start when attempting to string together intelligible sentences.

In other words he blocks his own shot.
vortex86
Posts: 559
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/27/2016 7:24:21 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/27/2016 7:16:44 PM, slo1 wrote:
At 9/27/2016 3:15:54 PM, NHN wrote:
At 9/27/2016 2:29:54 PM, slo1 wrote:
Anyone who's end conclusion that the debate was not good for Hillary is misguided.
Trump came off as incompetent, incoherent and unprepared. Judge Napolitano at Fox News was relentless (http://www.realclearpolitics.com...).

And I think Trump's poor preparation has to do with him being unable to learn cold facts and new tricks. He is a 70-year-old with no attention span, who incidentally hasn't read a book in decades; he doesn't even know where to start when attempting to string together intelligible sentences.

In other words he blocks his own shot.

That he does many times over.
slo1
Posts: 4,308
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/27/2016 7:25:48 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/27/2016 6:54:25 PM, Stymie13 wrote:
At 9/27/2016 6:15:02 PM, Burzmali wrote:
At 9/27/2016 6:00:16 PM, Stymie13 wrote:
At 9/27/2016 4:56:55 PM, NHN wrote:
At 9/27/2016 4:23:07 PM, Stymie13 wrote:
Who won? Neither. Who lost? The United States.

Every criticism heard against either side has been remarkably predictable. What did I personally hear in this debate? Exactly what was expected: not 1 thing of substance.
The only thing separating the two candidates on matters of actual policy is the future selection of justices to the Supreme Court. Here there is a potential for clashing visions.

Trump has indicated that he will lean on the Heritage Foundation's choice and appoint a "constructionist" or "textualist" (original intent) in the spirit of Scalia. Clinton, on the other hand, will lean on the ranks of liberal Ivy League judges, who prefer the "open text" interpretation (no original intent) particular to Breyer, Kagan or Bader Ginsburg.

That divide -- the existence or nonexistence of original intent in the Constitution -- is directly decided as a result of this election. As such, it should be debated. But in its stead we are fed with the pointless tirade of taxation, spending, terrorism, border control, immigration, etc., which are all subject to the complex technocracy/bureaucracy that is the modern state.

In the last analysis, however, Trump may be too ignorant to argue in favor of sustaining the original intent of the Constitution, and Clinton too smart to raise the issue.

I have an issue with Obama not nominating someone... I don't like open positions, I don't like the 'political football', and even though I am no Obama fan, it would be funny to watch the Republicans delay the vote instead of just take the up or down which they would win anyway.

What are you talking about? Obama nominated Merrick Garland. The senate refuses to have the vote on him. What do you mean you have a problem with him not nominating someone?

Some say I'm apathetic... far from the truth. I am disgusted by the incompetence of elected officials and lack of integrity.

About Scalia... isn't it funny how, when I was in school (90's) the term was constructionist, then it changed to originalist and morphed to textualist. Ironic and comedic, if not so damn serious.

Thanks for the correction... so much crap's filled the airwaves since then, resulting in me tuning out till after the conventions, I completely forgot about him.

Thanks for the check :) (some CAN admit when they make a mistake)

Well played Stymie. We all need to be more like that.
Stymie13
Posts: 2,162
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/27/2016 7:32:30 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/27/2016 6:55:47 PM, Burzmali wrote:
At 9/27/2016 6:54:25 PM, Stymie13 wrote:
At 9/27/2016 6:15:02 PM, Burzmali wrote:
At 9/27/2016 6:00:16 PM, Stymie13 wrote:
At 9/27/2016 4:56:55 PM, NHN wrote:
At 9/27/2016 4:23:07 PM, Stymie13 wrote:
Who won? Neither. Who lost? The United States.

Every criticism heard against either side has been remarkably predictable. What did I personally hear in this debate? Exactly what was expected: not 1 thing of substance.
The only thing separating the two candidates on matters of actual policy is the future selection of justices to the Supreme Court. Here there is a potential for clashing visions.

Trump has indicated that he will lean on the Heritage Foundation's choice and appoint a "constructionist" or "textualist" (original intent) in the spirit of Scalia. Clinton, on the other hand, will lean on the ranks of liberal Ivy League judges, who prefer the "open text" interpretation (no original intent) particular to Breyer, Kagan or Bader Ginsburg.

That divide -- the existence or nonexistence of original intent in the Constitution -- is directly decided as a result of this election. As such, it should be debated. But in its stead we are fed with the pointless tirade of taxation, spending, terrorism, border control, immigration, etc., which are all subject to the complex technocracy/bureaucracy that is the modern state.

In the last analysis, however, Trump may be too ignorant to argue in favor of sustaining the original intent of the Constitution, and Clinton too smart to raise the issue.

I have an issue with Obama not nominating someone... I don't like open positions, I don't like the 'political football', and even though I am no Obama fan, it would be funny to watch the Republicans delay the vote instead of just take the up or down which they would win anyway.

What are you talking about? Obama nominated Merrick Garland. The senate refuses to have the vote on him. What do you mean you have a problem with him not nominating someone?

Some say I'm apathetic... far from the truth. I am disgusted by the incompetence of elected officials and lack of integrity.

About Scalia... isn't it funny how, when I was in school (90's) the term was constructionist, then it changed to originalist and morphed to textualist. Ironic and comedic, if not so damn serious.

Thanks for the correction... so much crap's filled the airwaves since then, resulting in me tuning out till after the conventions, I completely forgot about him.

Thanks for the check :) (some CAN admit when they make a mistake)

Much appreciated. This site is sorely lacking in that area. :)

I could blame my 2 back to back grade 3 concussions sustained last month for my decreased memory capacity but... that would just be an excuse and my memory has returned (after a very long month of 'missing time'... I blame the 'greys'.lol)
But in reality, I just, to sound Kentuckian for a change, I just 'plumb' forgot about him.

Actually, I'm an independent and if memory serves, I didn't have too many issues with his rulings but, again, so much junk has transpired since that was actually discussed (which, another poster pointed out, is one of the few substantive issues these 2 clowns could be discussing vs. the normal talking points that we know they are going to repeat ad nauseum).
NHN
Posts: 624
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/28/2016 11:36:18 AM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/27/2016 7:16:44 PM, slo1 wrote:
At 9/27/2016 3:15:54 PM, NHN wrote:
At 9/27/2016 2:29:54 PM, slo1 wrote:
Anyone who's end conclusion that the debate was not good for Hillary is misguided.
Trump came off as incompetent, incoherent and unprepared. Judge Napolitano at Fox News was relentless (http://www.realclearpolitics.com...).

And I think Trump's poor preparation has to do with him being unable to learn cold facts and new tricks. He is a 70-year-old with no attention span, who incidentally hasn't read a book in decades; he doesn't even know where to start when attempting to string together intelligible sentences.

In other words he blocks his own shot.
Very much so. He doesn't know better (http://southpark.wikia.com...).

And the VP debate will be outright ridiculous as Pence will be forced to defend Trump's erratic positions, which constitute a near juxtaposition of Pence's own record on anything from free trade to NATO expansion. Pence will come off as distinctively disingenuous and Kaine will simply have to sit back and maintain composure. It will be painful to watch -- for Trump/Pence supporters.
NHN
Posts: 624
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/28/2016 12:39:35 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/27/2016 6:00:16 PM, Stymie13 wrote:
I have an issue with Obama not nominating someone... I don't like open positions, I don't like the 'political football', and even though I am no Obama fan, it would be funny to watch the Republicans delay the vote instead of just take the up or down which they would win anyway.
It has been standard procedure for a near century for president's to avoid nominating justices in the last year of their final terms. And I think it actually helps Democrats to a larger extent than Republicans, who could otherwise build their reelection campaign on fighting Obama's nominee.

Some say I'm apathetic... far from the truth. I am disgusted by the incompetence of elected officials and lack of integrity.
And you know what the future will look like: more bureaucracy/technocracy entailing vast insurance, welfare and health care schemes that branch out on all levels; a complete disintegration of the distinction between private enterprise and government. The only realm of change for a voter lies in the presidential election, and therewith, by proxy, the president's power to appoint justices and fed governors. Congress, whose elected officials will always increase spending to support local projects and programs, is gradually becoming irrelevant.

About Scalia... isn't it funny how, when I was in school (90's) the term was constructionist, then it changed to originalist and morphed to textualist. Ironic and comedic, if not so damn serious.
Very serious. And what it comes down to is whether the Constitution is considered a founding document which restricts state power and guarantees basic liberties, or whether it is a blank slate with limitless implications. I very much fear the latter.

When it comes to legal philosophy, I agree with justice Thomas R. Lee (brother of libertarian Utah Senator Mike Lee), who points to originalism as a means "to provide stable rules around which society can organize itself," which ultimately aims at "predictability in our legal system" (http://www.attorneyatlawmagazine.com...). Rather than the arbitrariness of private opinion, there must be a basic foundation regarding the writ of law.