Debate Monday

[Kathianne]

What will we see?

http://hotair.com/archives/2016/09/2...ate-seriously/

[sundaydriver]

Trump has already asked that Lester Holt do no fact checking during the debate, pretty obvious why. I guess that includes no laughing or WTF's?

[Bilgerat]

Anybody remember the "Candy Crowley" moment?

You know, the one where she "supposedly" fact checked and gave the whole moment to Obama

Then later, craw-fished the moment over the wrong "word", admitting that Romney was right "in the main".

So yeah, I can understand why Trump is wanting the lap dog, left leaning media to keep their grubby mouths shut.

But I'm certain they will be there for the Hildabeast.

[Abbey Marie]

I just wonder if she will get them to make it a sit-down debate to cover her problems.

[Elessar]

Anybody remember the "Candy Crowley" moment?

You know, the one where she "supposedly" fact checked and gave the whole moment to Obama

Then later, craw-fished the moment over the wrong "word", admitting that Romney was right "in the main".

So yeah, I can understand why Trump is wanting the lap dog, left leaning media to keep their grubby mouths shut.

But I'm certain they will be there for the Hildabeast.

The left-loaded media loves to tell folks "This is what was said" as if our own
ears and intelligence didn't hear it to begin with.

Then they write it up in big headlines the next day, distorting was was actually spoken.

[sundaydriver]

Anybody remember the "Candy Crowley" moment?

You know, the one where she "supposedly" fact checked and gave the whole moment to Obama

Then later, craw-fished the moment over the wrong "word", admitting that Romney was right "in the main".

So yeah, I can understand why Trump is wanting the lap dog, left leaning media to keep their grubby mouths shut.

But I'm certain they will be there for the Hildabeast.

Not only does Trump not want to be instantly countered on his claims by the Moderator but also claimed that the debate would be unfair with Holt being a Democrat. Ohh wait, Holt is a registered Republican, well, maybe it will be okay then.

[Russ]

Holt is a registered Republican

After seeing your post, I checked it out and sure enough, he is listed as a registered Republican. I must say, that is a shocker.

[Bilgerat]

Ohh wait, Holt is a registered Republican, well, maybe it will be okay then.

After seeing your post, I checked it out and sure enough, he is listed as a registered Republican. I must say, that is a shocker.

AND he works for NBC

A KNOWN shill for the Hildabeast

[jimnyc]

Twelve Debate Questions That Hillary Clinton Should Be Ready For

1. Can you identify three policy areas or decisions on which you have differed strongly from President Obama?

Notes: An easy answer might be the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade agreement, though that could get her into flip-flopping territory if not handled adroitly, since she spoke favorably of it while in the Obama Administration but opposes it now. An answer that is important but nuanced would involve Syria.

Possible follow-up: While serving as Secretary of State, where do you think that you personally made the biggest difference in the Administration’s direction?

2. If you are elected, four out of the five most recent Presidents will have been from two families. Is that healthy for American democracy?

Notes: It’s a legitimate question, so Clinton shouldn’t be dismissive. She might convey that she has considered the question herself, but that’s she’s proud of her family’s tradition of public service and that each election is a unique cast of characters. The trick would be to formulate those two thoughts without sounding either entitled or like the lesser evil. She might indicate that part of why she’s running is to open the highest levels of American politics to a whole new field of people—i.e., women.

Bonus hint: Don’t compare yourself to F.D.R., who followed his cousin Theodore, or talk about how great it would have been if Eleanor had run to succeed him—even if it would have been.

3. What did you learn from Bernie Sanders during the primary campaign?

Notes: Yes, this question has a condescending tinge to it. But it’s also an opportunity to talk to Sanders’s supporters. Seize it. The right answer involves the wonder of a new generation that is ready for dramatic, not incremental, change. The wrong answer is a talking-to about how incremental change is better, and about how young people didn’t have the proper information to understand that she was better for them.

Possible follow-up: This might also be a time to clarify just what minimum-wage increase she wants and thinks is wise—not just what she’d be willing to sign.

4. Do young women who don’t support you just not understand how hard it used to be?

Notes: The answer is no; chastisement didn’t work well when Madeleine Albright or Gloria Steinem tried it, and it would succeed even less so here.

Possible follow-up: Looking back on the way the press and some of your own supporters—and possibly you yourself—treated and talked about women who were connected to your husband, and were called bimbos and stalkers, do you have any regrets or reflections? If Trump mentions Monica Lewinsky, Gennifer Flowers (whom he has threatened to invite), Juanita Broaddrick, et al., it will likely be in this way: pushing the idea that Hillary was Bill’s misogynistic enabler. She needs to be ready. But, apart from that, it might be an opportunity to show some human empathy, if she can bring herself to take it. Lewinsky really was treated poorly by people in both parties and by the press.

5. Would you see a problem in Chelsea Clinton soliciting large sums of money for the Clinton Foundation if you are President?

The debate might be a good time to announce that Chelsea will step down as vice-chair of the Clinton Foundation if her mother is elected.

6. You’ve said that you have never changed your vote on anything because of money—speaking fees, foundation contributions, campaign donations. Why do you think people gave that money?

By all means, use this as an opportunity to talk about the Clinton Foundation’s good works. But don’t be glib about the rest. Don’t chant some variation of “everybody does it”—that’s exactly what voters have a problem with. At all costs, avoid a repeat of the “that’s what they offered” answer, given in response to Anderson Cooper’s town-hall question about why she took large speaking fees from Goldman Sachs.

Possible follow-up: Is the presence of a quid pro quo the test, or can the presence of money be more subtly corrupting? How she answers this may help determine how credible the Democratic Party is as a force for campaign-finance reform.

7. A couple of weeks ago, you said that half of Donald Trump’s supporters fall into a “basket of deplorables,” and referred to them as “irredeemable.” Later, you said, “I regret saying ‘half’—that was wrong.” What is the correct fraction?

Notes: Clinton can hedge as much as she likes on quantifying “deplorables,” but she could say that the number of “irredeemables” is zero. In this world and in this election, no one is irredeemable.

Possible follow-up: What’s the answer to the puzzle she posed, last week, at a union gathering: “Why aren’t I fifty points ahead?” At that event, she suggested that she might be if her supporters told their neighbors the facts. For the debate, she needs to answer this in a way that does not imply that her voters are just smarter than certain other people’s voters. Also, see notes on “deplorables,” above.

8. Do you still support a no-fly zone over Syria? What moves would you take if the Russians violated it?

Notes: It’s O.K. to subtly use this and other questions as a reminder that Trump has said very odd things about Vladimir Putin—but not at the expense of a straight answer.

Possible follow-up: You’ve said that the public should know that there will not be any American ground troops in Syria. What about the special-operations teams now on the ground? (This is partly a reminder to avoid what sounds like overly legalistic linguistic parsing.)

9. As President, will you commit to closing the Guantánamo Bay prison?

Notes: See Connie Bruck’s piece on Clinton’s principled support for—but practical ambivalence about—closing the facility.

Possible follow-up: President Obama wanted to close Guantánamo. Why do you think he failed? Republican obstruction, or realizing that the world is little more complicated than he thought when he was running against you in 2008 and charming all those crowds? See Question 1, above, for some guidance on this.

10. Before he leaves office, should President Obama pardon Edward Snowden?

Notes: The big warning label on this one is that some of the crimes Snowden might be charged with—exposing classified information—are in the same territory as Clinton’s extended e-mail drama. (And it should go without saying that she must have a clear, non-defensive answer on that.) Also, see above on not letting the desire to mention Putin as often as possible hijack answers to serious questions. Those caveats aside, this might be one of the few questions where it’s all right to sound like a lawyer—mentioning, for example, a plea deal that would involve some accountability, rather than the only options being a long prison sentence or a free pass. Or she might answer by anticipating the . . .

Possible follow-up: Did you, personally, learn anything from the Snowden leaks? The answer should be yes—about the disconnect between the public’s expectation of privacy and the government’s practices, if nothing else.

11. If you lose the election, what will you say to the American people on the morning after about the legitimacy of the process?

Notes: The answer has to be that we are the greatest, freest country in the world, and that we still will be on that morning. Don’t call the American people dupes. Don’t say that your opponent is cheating. Express your trust in the instruments of American democracy—which you will fully engage with, rather than retreating to Chappaqua—to see us through. If Trump wins, one of the many great dangers is that the country will be plunged into an era in which its political discourse becomes a tangle of conspiracy theories. Don’t contribute to it.

Possible follow-up: Will it have all been the media’s fault? The answer is no. Take responsibility as a candidate.

12. Why did you go to Donald Trump’s wedding?

Maybe it was fun, as Clinton has said before. Don’t cite his support for the Clinton Foundation—that is to say, don’t make it about money. Too much of this election already is.

http://www.newyorker.com/news/amy-da...cid=mod-latest

[jimnyc]

How Trump can knock out Hillary in the first debate

It promises to be the greatest show on earth: the first presidential debate to be held Monday night at Hofstra University in New York. Rarely has a political event attracted this kind of Super Bowl-level excitement, curiosity and anticipation. Then again, rarely have we had two presidential candidates who light up the political sky like Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton.

Mrs. Clinton has been on the national scene for nearly 30 years and carries all of the baggage of those tumultuous decades: endless scandals, ethical tightrope-walking, legal dodge ball, compulsive lying, slimy blame-shifting, bunker paranoia, the systematic selling of her offices for personal enrichment and the deliberate jeopardizing of the nation’s most sensitive secrets for her family’s gain.

She is like Pig Pen in the “Peanuts” cartoon: surrounded constantly by a cloud of corruption.

Viewers will want to see how this dangerous mess interacts with her opponent, who is clearly a political chess champion despite having just begun to play. It’s going to be Pig Pen versus the Master of the Universe.

We know what Mrs. Clinton will do, which is what she’s always done: lie, fabricate, deflect and distract. Boring and predictable.

Donald Trump, on the other hand, is neither — and he has the advantage of being shiny and new. What he does with that opportunity is anyone’s guess. I suspect he’s been rope-a-doping everybody with the “we’re not doing debate prep, we’re just hanging out eating cheeseburgers” line and will, in fact, knock out Mrs. Clinton with his command of policy, her long record of failure and the positive agenda he embraces.

For a full TKO, Mr. Trump should do four main things.

First, he should emphasize his pragmatic vision for turning America around: moving to pro-growth economics, restoring law and order, rebuilding the military and a strong national defense, reigniting America’s influence and prestige internationally, and defeating the corrupt, rigged system (as embodied by Mrs. Clinton).

As a successful presidential candidate, he must offer voters a positive, compelling reason to vote for him, rather than just against his opponent. That’s why it’s critical for Mr. Trump to focus on his restorative agenda for the country.

Second, as a compliment to his optimistic vision, he must smash Mrs. Clinton, both as a failed “leader” pushing failed policies and a destructive leftist ideology and as a deeply corrupt individual who cannot — must not — be trusted with the presidency.

She will try to swarm him with policy details to try to demonstrate that he’s unprepared for the highest office in the land. She’ll try to sit above the fray, winking that she’s “been there, done that.” Well, yes. But the question is not whether she was in the game. It’s how she played it — and what results she produced. For her, the result was evermore power and a net worth of over $125 million. For the country, the result is that we are less wealthy, less prosperous, less safe, less secure, less powerful.

Mr. Trump doesn’t have to show an encyclopedic knowledge of every policy nuance. He simply has to point to the wreckage of the Obama economy and foreign policy and say: “We tried it your way.”

Mic drop.

Third, he should “gaslight” her (hat tip to Alfred Hitchcock) by remaining totally cool and unflappable while calmly pushing on her vulnerabilities, from her disgraceful lack of integrity to her hypocrisy concerning women to standing by silently if she’s seized by one of her interminable coughing attacks.

This must be done with the greatest care, taking the Reagan approach of regarding her more in sorrow than in anger: “There you go again.” And he should call her Mrs. Clinton in order to link her to the deeply flawed boy who brought her to the dance.

For all of the talk about Mr. Trump’s alleged “thin skin,” she is extraordinarily prickly. She has never faced a tough election fight or been questioned aggressively or criticized to her face. If Mr. Trump can get under her thin skin, he could provoke a caustic response that will reveal the cosseted elitist behind the frozen smile. Witness candidate Barack Obama’s calmly delivered 2008 crack, “You’re likeable enough, Hillary.” The steam came out of her ears for days.

Finally, Mr. Trump must be a happy warrior. Most voters want to believe that he’s the guy not just to fix the country — but to restore their optimism with it. They want to know that he will fight the war for America’s future not as a burden but as a joyful privilege. If he can exuberantly convey that America can be saved — and that she is worth saving — he will not just win the debate but perhaps the election.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...y-clinton-in-/

[jimnyc]

Yup, as I just pointed out

-----

Donald Trump And Hillary Clinton Spar — And Get Personal — In First Presidential Debate

HEMPSTEAD, N.Y. — Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton sparred over trade, her emails, his taxes, crime, racism and other topics during the first general election debate, getting personal as Clinton attacked the Republican’s character and Trump dismissed the Democrat’s attempts to “act holier than thou.”

During an exchange where Clinton attacked Trump for once questioning Obama’s birthplace, Trump memorably countered by saying: “When you try to act holier than thou, it really doesn’t work. It really doesn’t.”

Interestingly, several topics — which could have helped Trump and hurt Clinton — did not come up during the debate, including about the Clinton Foundation and the Benghazi attacks.

Supporters of Trump are blaming NBC’s Lester Holt, the moderator, for the omission, though others point out that the Republican candidate could have brought them up on his own.

http://dailycaller.com/2016/09/26/do...ential-debate/

[jimnyc]

I gotta say, he does seem to think that everyone is out to get him somehow. At the same time, Holt did go after him a little different regarding Iraq, whereas he really didn't go after Clinton really at all regarding the tough questions. So no, I really don't think he was hostile towards Trump, I think he should have been MORE hostile towards Hillary.

-----

Trump on Debate: I Did Well; Holt Asked Some 'Hostile Questions'

Donald Trump Tuesday morning said he feels he did "really well" in Monday night's debate, but said he felt he had some "hostile questions," complained that he had experienced some issues with his microphone during the event at Hofstra University, and slammed a former Miss Universe pageant winner Hillary Clinton had referenced at the end of the debate.

"I thought it went really well," Trump told Fox News' "Fox & Friends" program. "I had some hostile questions. That was okay. It was the debate of debates."

Trump said he would give NBC News' Lester Holt, the moderator of the first debate, "about a C or C-plus" rating, and he thinks the anchorman did a good job overall, but said Holt did not ask Clinton many questions that he thought should have been asked.

"Well, he didn't ask her about the emails at all," said Trump. "He didn't ask her about her scandals. He didn't ask her about the Benghazi deal that she destroyed. He didn't ask her about a lot of things she should have been asked about. There's no question about it. He didn't ask about her foundation."

But still, he didn't think Holt did a bad job, even if he did hit him hard on the last four questions of the debate.

"They were leaving all her little goodies out," said Trump. "I was asked about my tax returns, which I've told about 500 times. But I think I really did well, when we were asked normal questions. I think I did really well in answering those questions, but those [other] questions are not answerable in a positive light."

Further, Trump said he could have hit Clinton with the scandals concerning her husband's infidelities, after her attacks on him about his statements about women, but he didn't do so because daughter Chelsea was in the room.

"I think I did the right thing," said Trump. "It's not worth a point. I didn't feel comfortable doing it with Chelsea in the room. I think Chelsea is a fine young lady. I didn't like doing it with Chelsea in the room."

Trump said he also wishes he'd brought up the Benghazi, Libya attacks.

"Don't forget, you are asked a question as to progress or something, and it's hard to get off to Benghazi sometimes the way the questions were framed," said Trump. "You start off in a totally — the opposite of Benghazi, and so Benghazi can't get brought up, but it was a very interesting evening."

Further, he said he thought the first half of the evening went well, but "in the end, they start bringing up 45-year-old lawsuits," said Trump, and Holt "leaned over to that [left] lane, but I don't know, every poll — I won slate. I won Drudge [Report], I got almost 90 percent of the vote in the poll. I won Time magazine. I won CBS.

"I won every single poll other than CNN and not many people are watching CNN. I tell you what, that place is a disaster. The people they have on those shows, they are third rate talent as announcers on that show. The moderators. They are terrible."

http://www.newsmax.com/Headline/Trum.../27/id/750341/

[jimnyc]

Is this spot on? On the up and up? Because if so, it would say a lot about his character. Or is he just BS'n?

-----

Why Trump decided not to bring up Monica Lewinsky at debate

Donald Trump said he held back from bringing up Monica Lewinsky at the Monday presidential debate — because he saw Chelsea Clinton in the audience.

“When she hit me at the end with the women, I was going to hit her with her husband’s women and I decided I shouldn’t do it because her daughter was in the room,” Trump said Tuesday morning in a phone interview on Fox News’ “Fox & Friends.”

Clinton had taken aim at Trump by quoting sexist comments he’d made in the past.

“I didn’t feel comfortable doing it with Chelsea in the room. I think Chelsea is a fine young lady,” Trump said in the morning-after interview.

After the debate, former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani, who is advising Trump, said the Republican nominee was going to call Clinton “phony as a feminist.”

http://nypost.com/2016/09/27/why-tru...sky-at-debate/

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Not only does Trump not want to be instantly countered on his claims by the Moderator but also claimed that the debate would be unfair with Holt being a Democrat. Ohh wait, Holt is a registered Republican, well, maybe it will be okay then.

As if there are not legions of RINO's....
One of the most damaging plagues of the REPUBLICAN PARTY IS ITS MANY LIFELONG RINO'S...
Such deceit and corruption is a mainstay in the Dem party as they actively infiltrate the Republican party to wreck havoc and produce grave damage.

This Holt clown is very likely rejected by Trump due to that being the case IMHO.
I'LL BET A DAMN DOLLAR TO A DONUT THAT AFTER THE DEBATE WE WILL SEE HOW AND WHAT TRAPS WERE SET TO DAMAGE TRUMP AS WELL AS WHAT ADVANTAGES WERE PUT IN PLACE TO LIFT AND EXALT THE FFING HILDABEAST.---TYR

[sundaydriver]

As if there are not legions of RINO's....
One of the most damaging plagues of the REPUBLICAN PARTY IS ITS MANY LIFELONG RINO'S...
Such deceit and corruption is a mainstay in the Dem party as they actively infiltrate the Republican party to wreck havoc and produce grave damage.

This Holt clown is very likely rejected by Trump due to that being the case IMHO.
I'LL BET A DAMN DOLLAR TO A DONUT THAT AFTER THE DEBATE WE WILL SEE HOW AND WHAT TRAPS WERE SET TO DAMAGE TRUMP AS WELL AS WHAT ADVANTAGES WERE PUT IN PLACE TO LIFT AND EXALT THE FFING HILDABEAST.---TYR

Why take responsibility for one's own words & actions when always playing a victim is so much easier and less time consuming?