Debate thread comments live.

I don't know that "corruptability" even matters in this election.

Democrats and Liberals want their social justice first-female-president, and republicans and conservatives want their anti-pc-run-it-as-a-business guy. It's a battle of ideologies, unfortunately, with no reason involved. If there were reason involved, we'd likely be seeing Rubio or Kasich up there, with Sanders or O'Malley, not the two most baggage ridden, flea bitten, bed raggled sleaze these two parties could drum up.

We all lose when the ideologies become more important that solidarity, and fixing problems.

 

Except ... not.

And Trump interrupted and interjected in every debate he was in before. So where have you been?

 

The point is free reign to do what and who was facing the tag team.

 

Generally, no. I think he's a man who is mostly isolated in his own bubble(as is Clinton) and because of that, he isn't anywhere near as good as his potential could be if he took the time. I mean, from all reports he took less than 20% of time preparing, and he looked much better than he did in the Republican Primaries. Can you imagine if he seriously considered the facts and thought them through? Then we would see someone entirely different.

Trump's biggest flaw is how much he thinks of himself. His conceit is far higher than his business deals, and which business deal hasn't been shady for anyone? And if you would profess that very conceit is what makes him unqualified to be president. I'd say you'd be right. I think having a cocky swagger is a good thing, I think strongly believing what you believe is a good quality. But only when tempered with sound judgment.

I'll give you my overall answer below, but I'll respond to this segment by saying Trump's biggest flaw is his conceited view of himself, not his corruption. His corruption comes as a result of his conceit.

This isn't the ideal outcome anyone wanted. To put perspective on this race, when it began I don't think I can bring up a single poster on this esteemed forum who thought very highly of these candidates(I'm referring to all 17, and the technical '5' that existed on the Democratic side, even though Debbie did her best Soviet impression.).

We all thought that the winner(Pre-Trump) would be a puppet and it would be 2020 when we'd have a much better shot at a real candidate for president. But then the news came out that mostly every politician had accepted foreign lobbying donations(even Rand Paul,my pre-pick before the debates even began) which made me sick.

Then the debates did begin, and I listened to Marco Rubio and came away very impressed. The man I called the Eisenhower of our times, and he should be commander in chief right now. Unfortunately, Chris Christie decided his pathetic career(and the little he did in NJ, which any Mid-Atlantic voter knows, since NJ is a desolate city) was more important than patriotism, and made a very weak, childish and pathetic attack that Rubio wasn't prepared for and it ended up damaging his brand. Then Trump did the rest and Rubio followed suit. It was sad to see

The old debate principles of the GOP: Thou shalt not attack a Republican, was not followed. And so we lost our chance at an Eisenhower-like president. My anger with Chris Christie has still not receded. He with his war on marijuana had NO right to make any political claims whatsoever or even to be on the same stage as the rest. It's political karma that he will never again sniff the White House, or any significant polling numbers. Thankfully for that.

Ben Carson was never a consideration, and frankly I held it as an insult that anyone with NO political experience would be running for president. He with no political experience also wanted to be a tinpot tyrant, enforcing injections on the American Public, who should at large be able to control what they put in their bodies.

So you might wonder then, why do I give Trump, a small pass on this crucial desire of mine? Because as an inexperienced candidate, he ran on the things that mattered. Immigration, trade and the overall economy. And then his health care proposals mirror my own substantially, I almost feel he ripped it off. Of course, there's a few more complex details in my plan that are missing. But Trump's health care plan is infinitely better than the disaster known as the ACA.

So with every controversial opinion, I cringed and hinged. We all know this, because in spite of my passion on the Third Position I didn't budge. To the disappointment of RiseAgainst and Tsuke. Both of them wanted me in the camp and I just couldn't do it. Because in spite of Nationalist policies, it wasn't concrete enough and he himself wasn't of the right temperament.

Then, I looked at Kasich(as Aphotic noted him) and Kasich was the most technically sound candidate of the entire 17, and he ran the most sophiscated website. With one exception: I had to click on virtually every link on his site to read his stances, but at least they were deep stances. By far the most philosophical, and he was soft-spoken. In the GOP of old, in say 2012 he would have won the nomination easily.

Unfortunately, Kasich's old mannerism did not match the fire that's burning in the country or the fire in the debates, so his savvy and technical knowledge of Congress and Washington were overlooked. It's a shame. I know it'll be very hard for Kasich, but I'd love to see him in a Trump administration. It'd calm a lot of minds to be sure.

This brings us to a man who was even LESS detailed than Trump and just as hated: Ted Cruz. It's amazing he lasted this long. It's because, despite being a rebel to the GOP interests, he had the conservative religious extremists in his corner, and he also had a George H.W. Bush like-voice. No, literally, Ted Cruz is a George H.W Bush clone.

Again, if he had run in 2012, he could've very well won the nomination and would've been stronger against the ACA than Romney. But with Cruz's website, it had even LESS details than Trump's. Seriously, in spite of the media complaining about Trump's vagueness, he was not the dumbest candidate of this race. That distinction belongs to Ted Cruz.

So suffice to say, I couldn't consider Cruz. That left Trump alone on an island, and I STILL didn't commit. I preferred Libertarian Gary Johnson. But a third party run is actually very tough in the U.S and as Durandal said: The 15% rule(established by the Commission to prevent the two parties from ever actually losing) is cronyist, unfair and fundamentally un-American. In Pennsylvania, they finally ruled that 3rd parties should have the same rights as any other! I'm not sure about the rules here in Michigan as I intend to start a third party revolution, but I too am tired of the two failures prostrating before us asking for a vote.

Anyway, I wanted to see if Johnson/Stein could gain the traction necessary to give us a true fundamental choice. But both candidates messed up. Johnson with Aleppo(but at least he had the character to ask, and then to give an answer when he understood) and then Stein with her graffiti. Between that and the Libertarian/Green's splitting votes amongst them, it became clear they'd be a non-factor.

So here I am with Trump. If I want to make sure one character of unredeemable features doesn't get in, I'm with Trump. I'm going to try and add the substance, intelligence and understanding that he lacks. With Hillary, we'll get untold corruption of the highest levels. Her ethics are even shadier than Trump's. Better the devil that at least voices on paper what we need, rather than Hillary running as Obama's 3rd term.

It concerns me greatly and we'll see this tomorrow in the VP debate between Pence and Kaine and I actually think that will not only be a more substantial debate, but an interesting one. Pence can make a broader appeal for religious conservatives, while striking a middle ground with independents. He'll be attacked on the controversial bill in Indiana(which I approved of.) If I were Pence, I'd attack how Liberals and other States responded: With an attempted economic boycott on Indiana.

I'd speak about how that's not who we are as a country, how it weakens our overall economics and actually threatens the stability of the union, in a very similar manner to tariffs and the slavery question. I'd put doubts about where Liberals best interests lie for America.

And I approve of it, because it's 2016. Everyone has the ability to participate in the financial markets and so if one or two stores don't want to sell, another more inclusive store will pick up that business. It's the laws of economics and a free market at work. Again, I'd question how much Liberals believe in enterprise, if they don't even believe that market needs will be met. There's a lot of areas Pence can attack Democrats on, their record over these 8 years has been unacceptable.

Liberals have basically been tyrants to everyone who isn't like them, which is why there are fewer and fewer Liberals.

As for the suggestion that we'd rather the advisors: Of course, sure we would. I'm upset about the choices given to us. But the reality is, we have to pick somebody and I now understand why people don't vote Third Party: Unless the third party gains traction, I'm tossing myself out of the electorate.

And I'm sorry, but Hillary Clinton is not worth me leaving it to chance that someone else will vote against her getting in the WH. So as bad as Trump is: He's not Hillary.

 

The biggest losers in the debate were Lester Holt and the MSM.

 

Good grief he was actually debating Trump at one point. He grilled Trump over his taxes, stop and frisk, the Birthers thing, women etc etc. Nothing on Hillary's Benghazi, the Clinton Foundation, the email. Six followup questions to Trump not ONE for Hillary. He let her state her talking points and canned attacks on Trump, no pressing of her answers.

 

Trump missed soooo many opportunities....

The one I was waiting on and counting on was when the fact checking was brought up. And Hillary served it up perfectly for him.

Hillary (paraphrasing): Please go to my web site, we will have people fact checking Donald all night.

Trump(should of said): Oh really, fact checking me? That's rich, are these fact checkers the same lawyers who read all you e-mails and missed 5,000 work related one that you failed to turn over. That's fine, fact check me. Mr. Comey, Mr. Comey are you watching, I'd like you to fact check my opponent again, the way you and Mr. Gowdey fact checked her, and found that she lied to the American people multiple times about her sending and receiving classified e-mails on an unsecure private server....


He missed huge on that one....

 

6 times he challenged Trump on his answers, not one.......not ONE follow up or challenge to Clinton.

 

Yes, "Lester" asked Trump 6 follow up questions, while asking Hillary zero.

And he interrupted Trump 41 times, to Hillarys 7.

 

Yes, a vast audience was able to see first hand the MSM/Political Class alliance in action - not good for the credibility thing.

 

Yes he did miss many opportunities, but we do this stuff all time. Trump is the novice - probably a good thing in the end.

 

Holt did not question her about nor did Trump on her claim that the horrible economic record under Democrat policies were actually caused by the Republican policies 2001-2007 when in fact the middle class did quite well during those years. Specifically the Bush tax cuts. No questions aboutbthe failed Democrat economic record.

And where was the question in Obamacare?

 

I think you're right in that it's his biggest flaw, but I think you're wrong in how much you downplay it. It's been the driving force of who he has been on the national stage on all the different mediums he's appeared in for the last 3 decades and more. It's the reason people tended to think of him as a boob before he ran for president(this time) and people seemed to forget who he was previous to this just because he switched some words around to make it appear like he understands or cares about the problems that face most Americans. He's not from that world. He was never, not even once, a part of that world. He's as foreign to the world working class Americans live in as you possibly can be. And yet they think he'll help them. He's got all the drawbacks of Romney in this department, but none of his benefits. The only thing he has going for him that might give him credibility as far as running the country goes is that he's rich. That's it. Working class America wants to elect rich Donald Trump who knows nothing of their world because they think he's going to help fix their world. He's got money so that must mean he can help them have more money too.

Pence will really have to bring it for the conservatives in the audience who won't vote for Donald Trump because he's not the least bit conservative.

As have the Republicans, and you can expect absolutely no less from a man like Trump, because that's who he is and has been. So it really makes it look like your complaint here isn't that people were being tyrants, it's that the wrong people were being tyrants. Trump is not a man who works with others and accepts criticism, even when constructive. Nor will he be willing to compromise in the true sense of the word, and especially not with the gigantic ego boost that he would receive by winning the White House. All that talk about "mandates" that the two elections supposedly gave to Obama and the Democrats will be multiplied exponentially in the mind of Trump. His own party barely likes him, and he's going to have to deal with them and the Democrats in Congress meaning those executive orders that people hate Obama for will be a persistent fixture of a Trump administration too, because it's the only way he'll be able to do anything. Are you ready to defend Trump's Pen and Phone?

That's the same thing people say every time there's a third party candidate or the two main candidates suck. But it's the one thing that makes absolutely sure that the system will never change and that we'll end up having the same conversation again in four years.

 

Personally, I think unconstitutional practices like stop and frisk far exceed the danger of emails, Benghazi (which is a stupid, dead horse at this point) AND the Clinton Foundation.

Stop and Frisk is absolutely abominable. No one can defend this practice.

That being said, Hillary sucks. I couldn't even get into her discussions at all.

Neither are my candidate. Gary Johnson thinks we should ignore potential problems because a billion years from now the sun will swallow us, and Jill Stein is a nutcase.

Sad days.

- - - Updated - - -

Middle class evaporated because of the Bush administration, those horrible policies were enacted through his terms. Did you miss that?

 

one thing others have pointed out is that when asked why trump is running he can instantly say that our jobs are leaving and im the guy to bring them back. Bernie says income inequality and money out of politics. Even Cruz says something like muh conservatism! Hillary is the only one with a blank.

 

if you havent noticed yet trump is running on economic nationalism while romney ran on free market conservatism. It seems like the people like economic nationalism (hence trump has been tagged a populist lol)

 

Bush set the pull out date..... but regardless I disagree, we never should of started a 10+ year war in Iraq

Iraq was like grabbing a tiger by the tail, you know when you let go there is gonna be trouble and you can't hold on forever

.

 

the vote was to leave the option for war on the negotiating table for Bush or not, taking the war option off the table would of been wrong

the issue was, that once inspectors reported they found no WMD, Bush decided to go to war anyways, Bush did not go back to congress and say no WMD found, you still want to go to war?

Bush told the inspectors to get out of Iraq as he was going to war over WMD anyways

.

 

I cannot figure out who won this thing...I thought it was a wasted moment. Trump had a couple of opportunities to drive a stake through her campaign and blew it. That said, the pundits are giving it to Clinton but the pundits have not predicted anything involving Trump right in over a year and the viewers seem to disagree pretty starkly. The snap polls, almost all of them, give it overwhelmingly to trump, BUT, snap polls are crap. The only real poll I know of, from CNN only sampled under 600 folk and oversampled dems by more than 150 people...oddly and unexpectedly, the poll, stuffed full of dems, thinks Clinton won. No, we need real polls to see who really won.

 

Didn't bother me, nor did I go report the potential flamebait.

 

The constant snorting and heavy breathing really shows this man cannot control himself. It must be torture to him to have to listen to a smart woman.

 

Seriously!!!! Healthcare costs are a major issue affecting the economy. Instead, we had to grill Trump on his birther comments and spend 10 minutes on whether he was against the Iraq war or not. Then, we had to see if Trump really hated women in the end because he said that Hillary looks bad as in healthwise and speculate over why he hasn't released his tax records.

Meanwhile, the stagnant economic growth, healthcare costs, pay for play, Hillary's email stories, etc. are completely avoided.

It was a sham. Hillary standing in front of everyone claiming she is going to tax the rich more, tax companies more, tax any capital trying to the leave the country with her next breath touting free trade, and then, she is going to reinvest this money into freaking clean energy?!?!?!?!?!?!?! and small business. I will be the first to say that Trump was bad, but how anyone after that debate can support such a complete idiot like Hillary is beyond me. She is basically touting her plan to create a tax code that targets political enemies and inefficiently reallocates that capital to political friends. Are we not completely tired of the inefficiencies of government allocation after the last 8 years?

 

Everything you don't like = hit piece. Got it.

 

The majority of questions to trump were talking point BS that will not affect the future of one American.

 

Case in point, Trump says Hillary doesn't look good in the context of her health meaning she looks ill. That she has to constantly take breaks from campaigning and that the job of President demands more than she looks like she can handle.

Holt tees this up to Hillary as a feminist rant as if Trump was actually referring to Hillary's attractiveness as a woman. WTF? Not only was it a complete fabrication of what really happened, but it is a complete non-issue. I bet a majority of voters probably question if Hillary's recent poor health appearance, yet, we bring up that Trump said it like its a hit on his character. Pure garbage.