Debate Monday

[jimnyc]

So give a run down on expectations vs reality.

Only interested in the expectation vs. reality for Clinton? LOL Trust me, while perhaps Hillary didn't get propped up and given the baby treatment as Russ had pointed out, she did get softball questions and the tough shit was avoided mostly entirely. And then of course, I'll guarantee as the next few days go on it will be made to sound as if she trounced Trump. But that's not the reality that I'm reading

But if you're interested in the reality - wouldn't you be interested in the 'factual' reality, you know, like the things I asked, the difficult questions that will bring out the truth about her character as well - or are you only interested in the negative stuff about Trump?

[Noir]

Only interested in the expectation vs. reality for Clinton? LOL Trust me, while perhaps Hillary didn't get propped up and given the baby treatment as Russ had pointed out, she did get softball questions and the tough shit was avoided mostly entirely. And then of course, I'll guarantee as the next few days go on it will be made to sound as if she trounced Trump. But that's not the reality that I'm reading

But if you're interested in the reality - wouldn't you be interested in the 'factual' reality, you know, like the things I asked, the difficult questions that will bring out the truth about her character as well - or are you only interested in the negative stuff about Trump?

You start your post with 'only interested in Clinton' and end with 'only interested in trump' 0,o

In any case am currently reading through the transcript, and as good as that is for what people acutally said, it's not so good for the kinds of things Russ mentioned in his post, and I'm not going to watch a debate for those answers when it's more efficient to ask someone that's all ready watched it.

[jimnyc]

You start your post with 'only interested in Clinton' and end with 'only interested in trump' 0,o

In any case am currently reading through the transcript, and as good as that is for what people acutally said, it's not so good for the kinds of things Russ mentioned in his post, and I'm not going to watch a debate for those answers when it's more efficient to ask someone that's all ready watched it.

Yes, interested in somehow proving that he was wrong about Clinton with his "expectations"... or your usual of only negatives about Trump? Seem totally different to me, but I guess you knew that already. I hope so anyway....

The projection from Russ appears to be incorrect. From what I read, they were treated the same physically. The hard questions AGAIN appear to have been avoided, on both sides. Not much new learned, and no truths were shown to the "undecided" American voters, the truths that are actually facts that they need to be shown.

[Noir]

Yes, interested in somehow proving that he was wrong about Clinton with his "expectations"

Someone on the internet might have been wrong? That doesn't sound right at all.

or your usual of only negatives about Trump?

Lololol, yeah because I've never said anything negative about Clinton, she's perf.

[jimnyc]

Someone on the internet might have been wrong? That doesn't sound right at all.



Lololol, yeah because I've never said anything negative about Clinton, she's perf.

I never said you didn't say anything, just a little imbalanced is all. It's not like you don't come off as a bit of a liberal... embrace it young'un!

[Noir]

I never said you didn't say anything, just a little imbalanced is all. It's not like you don't come off as a bit of a liberal... embrace it young'un!

The word "only" means more than "a little imbalance"

Just got to the part about the e-mails, Trump just let Clinton off without so much as a jab - when returning to Trump to rebuff what Hillary described as her 'mistake' regarding personal server use, Trump changed the subject back to his tax returns. Genius.

[jimnyc]

The word "only" means more than "a little imbalance"

Just got to the part about the e-mails, Trump just let Clinton off without so much as a jab - when returning to Trump to rebuff what Hillary described as her 'mistake' regarding personal server use, Trump changed the subject back to his tax returns. Genius.

Ok, let's drop the other crap, doesn't matter.

I don't know why he didn't bury her at times either. He could/should have nailed her with questions and mentions about Bill's prior infidelities and/or alleged rapes, but said he didn't because he respected Chelsea who was in the audience. WTF? Suddenly he is being nice? Look, I have no problem with him being respectful to women, or avoiding such questions while the daughter is in attendance... just makes me wonder is all. I would have blasted her regardless.

[Noir]

Just finished reading through, not overly impressed by either - Clinton only really got hit hard with NAFTA and TTP, Getting away with most of everything else.

And Trump flirted with with walking off a political cliff by gloating about paying zero taxes, profiting from the recession etc, I don't think these are the kinds of comments that resonate with voters.

[jimnyc]

Just finished reading through, not overly impressed by either - Clinton only really got hit hard with NAFTA and TTP, Getting away with most of everything else.

And Trump flirted with with walking off a political cliff by gloating about paying zero taxes, profiting from the recession etc, I don't think these are the kinds of comments that resonate with voters.

I've almost watched it all now, and read a ton - and it appears my initial reaction is likely true. Neither really made any fatal mistakes, but neither hit a home run either. If anything, it would appear to be the "same 'ol, same 'ol".

So not only didn't we get to learn the "good" questions that some finally wanted, but we also didn't see anyone go for the jugular either.

[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/

[Russ]

So give a run down on expectations vs reality.

Here's a brief rundown:

My expectations for the debate on Monday:

1. Hillary will want to be sitting down - She did stand up for the entire debate, although who knows how many braces and drug injection systems were under that pant suit.
2. Hillary will want to take frequent breaks off-stage. I understand there will be no commercial breaks, so I'm looking forward to seeing how she tries to do this. - She made it through the debate.
3. The moderator Lester Holt will frequently try to challenge Trump on facts but will challenge Hillary little or not at all. - This essentially came true. Holt challenge Trump a lot on when he was against the Iraq war, and on the birther issue. He hardly challenged Hillary at all, even on the birther issue right after Trump stated it came out of her campaign. And no questions on emails or the Clinton Foundation.
4. Liberal media outlets (MSNBC, Politico, ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN) will immediately declare that "it looks like Hillary won it", no matter how the debate goes. - I have not checked yet, but I'll bet this will come true.
5. There will be some well-known liberal person(s) sitting in the front row trying to cheer for Hillary. - Mark Cuban


Two intriguing questions about the debate:
1. Will Hillary make it through the debate without falling over, or her eyes glazing over, or making chicken-clucking motions with her head when a flash goes off? - She stood up, but I definitely saw her eyes glazing over during the last 30 minutes.
2. What's the over/under on how many times Hillary calls Trump a name, like "____-ist" or "____-in-Chief" ? - I'm not sure if she used these terms during the debate, although she will in the next few days.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

I made the mistake of deciding to take a sip of Scotch every time Hillary started a sentence with "I have a plan for that..." and now I'm not sure if I can go to work tomorrow.

Hillary has created more plans than Christopher Wren, but has never actually acted on one.

And my two ex-wives --"promised" to be loving and faithful......
That piece of shit would promise any thing to get the crown..
And she'd have(they already have if sources are true) anybody murdered to continue the fantastically wealthy and corrupt lives that SHE, BILL AND THAT DAUGHTER now have.
I believe less than 1% of what that scum says.. -Tyr

[revelarts]

Concerning people's disappointment at Trump and Clinton not tackling various points or covering certain issues deeply.

Seems to me It's another reason why it's good to have 3rd parties involved.
They have vested interest in hard digging and questioning the motives of Both Trump and Clinton. Also for Stein, Johnson and the others it's a chance to get on the map somehow.
But as it stands Trump and Clinton seem to be satisfied playing it safe and the Networks have ZERO problem playing along with that standard establishment option.
Softball questions, never dealing with root issues, or questionable allegiances, actions or history. But plenty of questions about what's your favorite foods.

[Kathianne]

Concerning people's disappointment at Trump and Clinton not tackling various points or covering certain issues deeply.

Seems to me It's another reason why it's good to have 3rd parties involved.
They have vested interest in hard digging and questioning the motives of Both Trump and Clinton. Also for Stein, Johnson and the others it's a chance to get on the map somehow.
But as it stands Trump and Clinton seem to be satisfied playing it safe and the Networks have ZERO problem playing along with that standard establishment option.
Softball questions, never dealing with root issues, or questionable allegiances, actions or history. But plenty of questions about what's your favorite foods.

Hey, it wouldn't matter if the thing is rigged with a defective microphone!

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/0...-debate-228754

[pete311]

Concerning people's disappointment at Trump and Clinton not tackling various points or covering certain issues deeply.

Seems to me It's another reason why it's good to have 3rd parties involved.
They have vested interest in hard digging and questioning the motives of Both Trump and Clinton. Also for Stein, Johnson and the others it's a chance to get on the map somehow.
But as it stands Trump and Clinton seem to be satisfied playing it safe and the Networks have ZERO problem playing along with that standard establishment option.
Softball questions, never dealing with root issues, or questionable allegiances, actions or history. But plenty of questions about what's your favorite foods.

Agreed, Stein or Johnson would have been able to debate Hilary more competently. Trump was nothing but bravado. It's really really pathetic.