Who Won the Debate?

[Guest]

On 9/27/2016 at 2:35 PM, prisonchaplain said:

I'm sticking with my two-month old analogy--because this debate underlined it.  HRC is the hated vice principal.  She's educated.  She always says, "We have to, we need to..."  She looks and sounds condescending, smug, and dismissive.  Trump is the schoolyard thug.  He's brash, knows how to irritate the school administrators, and he knows how to make his allies laugh and nod.  Most of us (students in this analogy) don't care much about the VP or the thug.  Some of us are irritated enough at the way the school's run that we're tempted to give the thug a day to shake things up.  Others (maybe the fearful ones, wanting safe spaces and trigger warnings) prefer the mildly oppressive dullness of the educational establishment.

For Trump supporters, the big good news is that he did not misstep, and thus overcame the biggest fear--that he really was not up to facing a formidable female Democratic opponent.  He did so, despite the moderately-biased moderator.  So, debate whether Trump won or not, but I'd argue he did not lose.

So what happens when the thug becomes the principal?

[prisonchaplain]

We get conservative judges (probably...maybe), and I'd invest heavily in news media stock, 'cause they'll probably have plenty to write about.

[Just_A_Guy]

12 hours ago, Carborendum said:

So what happens when the thug becomes the principal?

What, you never read Lord of the Flies?

[Blueskye2]

On 9/27/2016 at 10:20 AM, yjacket said:

I don't think he lost; I don't think he won big either.  I think he held serve and did what he needed to do.

I've said this before, Trump is very, very good at persuasion.  In this debate he was cautious.  IMO it was a conscience decision to not go after the e-mails, Bengahzi, Clinton Foundation etc.  I think the reason for this is because of who he was talking to.

We already know that ~40% of the electorate is going to vote red or blue regardless of what happens, but there is approx. 20% that are persuadable.  The dynamics of this debate are much different than in times past. #1 For many people, last's nights debate was their first real introduction to Trump; meaning the 1st time they've really seen him speak and talk. #2 He is debating a woman. Those two things change the dynamics a bit.

He had to be bold, but not seem overly critical. For a 1st impression to many people, he could not be overbearing.  Clinton's whole argument is that Trump is nuts, racist,  sexist, etc. 1st impressions are everything, he had to make sure that he did not play into that. IMO Clinton's last jab at Trump about him and the Nuclear Codes, and women, etc. fell completely flat except for anyone that is already going to vote Clinton no matter what.

So his goals last night as the first true 90 min. introduction to many people were to a) demonstrate competence, b) demonstrate that he isn't nuts, crazy, etc. without saying so (i.e. by demonstrating it) and c) basically plant the seed in people's minds, he isn't as nuts as the media and Clinton make him out to be.

IMO, if last night debate was one's first real introduction to Trump, the take away is, he is competent and not nearly as crazy or such a horrible person as people make him out to be.  And if that is all he accomplished last night, then he won.

Trump used this debate as a set-up for the next debate (the election is still over a month away). My guess is build up trust among people that normally don't see you and then once Trust is established unload on Hillary.

Again 1st impressions mean everything.  If he unloaded on Hillary with both guns that is great for political junkies, but average joe would see him as too overbearing (especially b/c she is a woman).  The gloves will come off I think next time.

 

I didn't catch the not bonkers part while watching the debate. 

[yjacket]

4 hours ago, Blueskye2 said:

I didn't catch the not bonkers part while watching the debate. 

Which part came across as he was bonkers?

[Blueskye2]

20 hours ago, yjacket said:

Which part came across as he was bonkers?

Constantly interrupting, denying his own quotes, a lengthy law and order ranting, The latter he came across to me as unhinged. 

Edited October 2, 2016 by Blueskye2

[yjacket]

13 minutes ago, Blueskye2 said:

Constantly interrupting, denying his own quotes, a lengthy law and order ranting, The latter he came across to me as unhinged. 

??? So a "lengthy law and order rant" is unhinged?
I don't like stop and frisk, I don't think we should use it.  But this is not "unhinged". He makes some excellent points . .let's just go through the list of crap that has happened in the past several years, Ferguson, Baltimore, Charlotte, Atlanta, Occupy Wallstreet, etc. These are people who "protest" by going onto the major freeway of Atlanta for example and completely shut it down with absolutely no consequences.

Those people should be arrested and thrown in jail!!! 

I am very sympathetic to police shootings (if you look on this website, I have brought up several examples of IMO unjust, immoral killings by the police).  Those problems are mainly caused by the drug war and the militarization of the police.  So no I don't like stop and frisk in the least bit-but it's not "unhinged", the point his is making is that we have a serious problem in the country right now where an unjust shooting happens and then protesters think it's okay to do whatever they want to (and that is not right). Clinton's solution is to just let the rioters riot. Her attitude is that of the Baltimore Mayor " We also gave those who wish to destroy space to do that as well.” ??? What kind of crap is that. That is unhinged.

He was not ranting and raving with spittal coming out of his mouth.  The funny thing I've noticed is how much the media deranges him without even using his words.  A hit article will literally quote only one sentence and then say he is crazy.

This is a "rant" and "unhinged"?  

 

[yjacket]

33 minutes ago, Blueskye2 said:

Constantly interrupting, denying his own quotes, a lengthy law and order ranting, The latter he came across to me as unhinged. 

Denying his own quotes . . .let's take the "Miss Piggy" and "Miss Housekeeping".  I have not found the actual article where he is quoted as saying that.  Context is everything-yet with all the coverage of this, I can't find ONE article that actual tells me the direct quote of what he said. In this video, he mentions several times she was/is extremely beautiful and just that the stress of the job (this is after a year of her BEING Miss Universe) that she was eating too much and this was to help her get into shape so that when she passed off the crown to the next Miss Universe she would look fabulous. He also says that when she won it she was "too light" at 118.

He also mentions that he owned 50% of it with a partnership with Time and that other people wanted to fire her but that he didn't, he wanted to get her back into shape rather than fire her.

For pete sake's this is a Beauty contest, where women on judged on how they look!!!! So that is his great crime is being involved in a beauty contest.  As for the media being present . . .who know why it needed to be a media event, maybe b/c he partner wanted it, maybe b/c the news wanted it, who knows.

And being on the news is shaming . . .this woman paraded around in a bikini for the world, but exercising in front of the news media is inappropriate.

This is "fat-shaming", (and yes she is a little over-weight for Miss Universe-she's not fat and still a very good looking gal, but certainly not the "Miss Universe physique"). You don't want to have the Miss Universe physique then don't compete in it!!!

But don't let the facts get in the way of the narrative!

 

[Blueskye2]

33 minutes ago, yjacket said:

??? So a "lengthy law and order rant" is unhinged?
I don't like stop and frisk, I don't think we should use it.  But this is not "unhinged". He makes some excellent points . .let's just go through the list of crap that has happened in the past several years, Ferguson, Baltimore, Charlotte, Atlanta, Occupy Wallstreet, etc. These are people who "protest" by going onto the major freeway of Atlanta for example and completely shut it down with absolutely no consequences.

Those people should be arrested and thrown in jail!!! 

I am very sympathetic to police shootings (if you look on this website, I have brought up several examples of IMO unjust, immoral killings by the police).  Those problems are mainly caused by the drug war and the militarization of the police.  So no I don't like stop and frisk in the least bit-but it's not "unhinged", the point his is making is that we have a serious problem in the country right now where an unjust shooting happens and then protesters think it's okay to do whatever they want to (and that is not right). Clinton's solution is to just let the rioters riot. Her attitude is that of the Baltimore Mayor " We also gave those who wish to destroy space to do that as well.” ??? What kind of crap is that. That is unhinged.

He was not ranting and raving with spittal coming out of his mouth.  The funny thing I've noticed is how much the media deranges him without even using his words.  A hit article will literally quote only one sentence and then say he is crazy.

This is a "rant" and "unhinged"?  

 

Everyone I know is for law and order. Speaking as though law and order is some new thing that only Donald Trump can deliver, is bonkers.  Irony to, in that he pushes law and order to its limits when it suits his personal gain. I don't see he's made a connection with personal and business ethics and the rule of law. So pretending to be a law and order guy, while thinking nobody notices what kind of guy he is, is also bonkers. At the very least he comes across to me as snowballing.

I sometimes wonder if he just has a criminal mind, not in a dastardly overly dramatic way, but if you've ever read interviews with convicted criminals, they often don't make the connection of their wrong actions to being well, wrong. I don't see he makes that connection.  Not paying taxes is smart. Not paying contracted obligations because...why? But he obviously doesn't view non payment to thousands of vendors and contractors, as wrong  

I am not relying on your demonic media. I watched the entire debate and have watched Trump stump speeches. Not all of them, but I have been seriously trying to figure out how he appeals to people.  I just don't see how. I can't stop seeing a tax and debt evading, philandering, misogynist, blowhard. 

Edited October 2, 2016 by Blueskye2

[yjacket]

4 minutes ago, Blueskye2 said:

Everyone I know is for law and order. Speaking as though law and order is some new thing that only Donald Trump can deliver, is bonkers.  Irony to, in that he pushes law and order to its limits when it suits his personal gain. So pretending to be a law and order guy, while thinking nobody notices what kind of guy he is, is also bonkers. At the very least he comes across to me as snowballing. 

Everyone I know is for law and order too . . .but not Hillary Clinton and the people in charge in Baltimore.  They say, yeah people can just riot

Law and order does not mean enforcing regulations or taxes.  Law and order means 1 thing, protection of life, liberty, property.

And everyone I know is for calculating their tax return in the best way possible to get as much money back as possible. Considering there are tons of ways one can calculate their tax return and still be 100% correct-especially as a business owner.

What are you talking about that he "pretends to be a law and order guy", please tell me where his supporters have hurt other people.

Oh wait a second you mean this? Again, don't let the facts get in the way of the narrative!!

 

[Blueskye2]

No one believes people should riot. Most Americans I know have this idea we can protest.  There are police actions that should be protested. 

When you look at how Trump has used his nonprofit, it doesn't bring warm and fuzzies about his ability to not pay taxes, while bragging that he makes over 600 mil in one year. I make a five figure income and have never been able to get out of paying taxes. I must be a stupid taxpayer, I guess. 

Edited October 2, 2016 by Blueskye2

[Blueskye2]

39 minutes ago, yjacket said:

Denying his own quotes . . .let's take the "Miss Piggy" and "Miss Housekeeping".  I have not found the actual article where he is quoted as saying that.  Context is everything-yet with all the coverage of this, I can't find ONE article that actual tells me the direct quote of what he said. In this video, he mentions several times she was/is extremely beautiful and just that the stress of the job (this is after a year of her BEING Miss Universe) that she was eating too much and this was to help her get into shape so that when she passed off the crown to the next Miss Universe she would look fabulous. He also says that when she won it she was "too light" at 118.

He also mentions that he owned 50% of it with a partnership with Time and that other people wanted to fire her but that he didn't, he wanted to get her back into shape rather than fire her.

For pete sake's this is a Beauty contest, where women on judged on how they look!!!! So that is his great crime is being involved in a beauty contest.  As for the media being present . . .who know why it needed to be a media event, maybe b/c he partner wanted it, maybe b/c the news wanted it, who knows.

And being on the news is shaming . . .this woman paraded around in a bikini for the world, but exercising in front of the news media is inappropriate.

This is "fat-shaming", (and yes she is a little over-weight for Miss Universe-she's not fat and still a very good looking gal, but certainly not the "Miss Universe physique"). You don't want to have the Miss Universe physique then don't compete in it!!!

But don't let the facts get in the way of the narrative!

 

Ummm that isn't was I was thinking of. That, I think he stepped in something he shouldn't have and was outmaneuvered.

I was thinking of this Twiiter post by Trump and then his denying his own quote. "The concept of global warming was created by and for the Chinese in order to make U.S. manufacturing non-competitive."

 

[Blueskye2]

Replying to a post on mobile devices is not easy. 

 

In response to: "Law and order does not mean enforcing regulations or taxes.  Law and order means 1 thing, protection of life, liberty, property."

Ethics and law are tied together. Ethics are codes that society agrees everyone must conform to. Law codifies ethics, and are meant to regulate society. Ethic's come from moral values. Laws are made using ethics as a guiding principle.

I don't see that Trump has made the connections of ethics and law.  Tax laws come from a moral obligation, towards values of what a society requires to function, for the good of its citizens. When someone quips not paying taxes is smart, it calls into question for me whether or not they have understood the concept of societal ethics informing a law that we should pay taxes. He criticizes (wrongly) that national infrastructure is ignored, yet calls it smart that he gets out of financially supporting improvements that require tax funds to make possible. In my college communications course, we called this a pseudo solution. That is, if a solution has no financial backing it is not a solution, it is just talking.  Trump wants all this and all that and criticizes all this and all that, but his efforts are to remove himself from any financial obligation. He shows this tendency of veering from personal financial obligation in more than one area. 

I think this points towards a serious moral defect in Trump. I think it points towards a view, that he sees morals and altruism as weaknesses. It gives me serious pause in considering him as our President. 

Edited October 2, 2016 by Blueskye2

[yjacket]

4 hours ago, Blueskye2 said:

Tax laws come from a moral obligation, towards values of what a society requires to function, for the good of its citizens.

??? Umm, no, tax laws are not a form of "moral obligation".  Income taxes are theft pure and simple. The naked truth of taxes is that if I do not pay taxes, someone will come into my house, forcible take me and throw me in a jail.  That is robbery plain and simple. We give the robber a special name "government", and say special words like "law" but it is still theft.

My friend, you are seriously mistaken if you think taxes are required for society to function.  No one has an obligation to pay more in income taxes than exactly what they are required to pay to keep themselves out of jail. Given the current tax code, it becomes a fiduciary responsibility or organizations to pay as little as possible in taxes.  Why do you think GE pays 0 in taxes.

You don't want that to happen, very simple fix- simplify the tax code to a simple flat tax.  

Did you know that when the income tax was first passed it was only 1% for people making above 10,000 (which is roughly equal to over 100k today)?

[yjacket]

7 hours ago, Blueskye2 said:

I think this points towards a serious moral defect in Trump. I think it points towards a view, that he sees morals and altruism as weaknesses. It gives me serious pause in considering him as our President. 

Again, we see what we want to see and don't let the facts get in the way of a narrative? Clinton who plainly defies laws that could end up getting people killed, the woman who quite simply created ISIS is fit?  And I say created ISIS b/c what exactly do you really think Benghazi was about?  

It was about gun-running and money-running to "rebels" who were to overthrow Assad.  Those rebels had a name, the name was Al-queda in Syria which later became ISIS.  I don't say this b/c of Trump, I say it b/c of my experience of where I have worked.  Benghazi was all about supplying weapons and money to terrorists who we thought would fight for us, except they didn't.  ISIS control MRAPS, and other pieces of US military equipment. . . .the sad truth is that the US funded ISIS.

[Blueskye2]

 I have always viewed the "Arab Spring" in Syria as the US on the wrong side. But then there was not a right side either. We started arming Al Qaida in Afghanistan, in the 80s. Truth be told if I could I'd leave this country. But that isn't going to happen. I feel obligated to vote. I don't like either candidate, but I like Trump less. I highly doubt he is going to make a positive difference to international interests. He doesn't even understand what the issues are and who is involved. 

 

[yjacket]

1 hour ago, Blueskye2 said:

 I have always viewed the "Arab Spring" in Syria as the US on the wrong side. But then there was not a right side either. We started arming Al Qaida in Afghanistan, in the 80s. Truth be told if I could I'd leave this country. But that isn't going to happen. I feel obligated to vote. I don't like either candidate, but I like Trump less. I highly doubt he is going to make a positive difference to international interests. He doesn't even understand what the issues are and who is involved. 

 

You are right there was not a right side; except to stay the heck out of it!! The US has caused more international problems and strife by mucking around in other countries than would exists if it just left it alone. 

I really don't understand this "I highly doubt he is going to make a positive difference to international interests." We have a known war-mongering, who advocated overthrowing other countries leaders (and did so) without a declaration of war, with no authorization except that they just wanted to get rid of them.  Giddafi "We came, we saw, he died"?? The US makes itself out like it is this paragon of virtue and sainthood with regards to foreign policy. We castigate Russia for Georgia and Crimea, yet we can't seem to get beyond the fact that from the perspective of many Middle Eastern people the biggest terrorist is the US. We have drones that rain hell fire upon civilian populations and the chief architects and advocates of those policies are Obama and Clinton. 

And you highly doubt Trump is going to make a positive difference to international interest? Shoot it's hard to do worse than what Obama,Clinton (and Bush) have done in the past 16 years! The hypocrisy is astounding. If anything at least Trump isn't tied to the war-mongering elites. 

For what it's worth, in my neck of the woods my state is listed as a "toss-up".  Hahahaha, anyone who actual lives in my state knows that is a bunch of bull-Trump wins my state hands down no contest. The Rs have a super-majority in both houses (not that that's a good thing), both senators are R, the congressmen are overwhelming R.  I'm in a major metro area and went out for ice cream at a local parlor that has an old-school chalkboard.  Go Trump! and Trump wins was written at least 10 times with boo Hillary with frowny faces several times. No chance in hades Clinton wins my state and it's listed as a toss-up; that tells you how the accurate the "polls" are. 

If you don't like either of the major candidates then either write someone in or vote Libertarian. Just please don't vote for Hillary, she is bad, bad news. That woman is evil and the most pernicious evil is the kind that presents a facade of niceness, caring, etc. but on the inside they are rotten to the core. The person that appears evil on the outside is easy to deal with, the ones that appear good on the outside but on the inside are true devils-those are the people you really have to watch out for. 

Edited October 4, 2016 by yjacket

[Guest MormonGator]

30 minutes ago, yjacket said:

 I'm in a major metro area and went out for ice cream at a local parlor that has an old-school chalkboard.  Go Trump! and Trump wins was written at least 10 times with boo Hillary with frowny faces several times

Oh so you live in Massachusetts then? Makes sense. 

(just playing everyone) 

[Blueskye2]

Trump has said he'd nuke more than one country. He wants to build a wall along the Mexican border. He has a bromance crush on Putin. He's all about money, and views making monetary political deals as something to brag about. He's a dream come true for military contractors. Oh and in the debate he said China should invade N Korea  which is incredibly stupid on more than one level  

I live in Utah. Red R always is voted in. It doesn't matter who I vote for, from that view. It only matters to my own conscience. 

Edited October 4, 2016 by Blueskye2

[yjacket]

9 hours ago, Blueskye2 said:

Trump has said he'd nuke more than one country. He wants to build a wall along the Mexican border. He has a bromance crush on Putin. He's all about money, and views making monetary political deals as something to brag about. He's a dream come true for military contractors. Oh and in the debate he said China should invade N Korea  which is incredibly stupid on more than one level  

I live in Utah. Red R always is voted in. It doesn't matter who I vote for, from that view. It only matters to my own conscience. 

Please name the country he said he'd nuke? Please point me to the direct quote where he said that.  What he has said and it is a very logical thing to say is that there are circumstance in which he would use nuclear weapons.  If there are no circumstances in which a leader would use nuclear weapons, then why build them!!!! To provide employment to nuclear engineers??  That was the whole point of MAD-i.e. there are circumstances in which a country would use nuclear weapons.  

On a much smaller and less intense debate area. Do you have a gun in your house? If the same question is asked and you responded, I would never use a gun, then why are you keeping it? To look at? So yes he pointedly asked an interviewer a question. Why can't we use nuclear weapons? and if we can't use them then don't build them.  That's not a bully, an idiot or a war-mongerer that is just common sense.

Building a wall? You obviously don't get out much, the idea of limiting the amount of illegal immigrants entering this country is crazy? When (and I have personally witnessed this) two illegals can come across the border, have a child in the US with no medical insurance making the local hospital and everyone else who has insurance pay for their decision to illegally enter the country and have a child in a nice fancy hospital at someone elses expense it is time to do something about it.  And to add insult to injury, the will now never be kicked out of this country b/c they have a US citizen with them? That is idiocy. No other country on the planet does anything similar.  Building a wall to keep those types of individuals out is not.

He's a dream come true for military contractors? And Clinton is not?? He never said China should invade N. Korea.  He said China should lean on N. Korea. BIG difference.

And Putin, do you really want another cold war? Time and time again, nations that trade with each other, that talk with each other don't go to war with each other.

Again don't let the narrative that Trump is a racist, idiot, bully etc. get in the way of the facts!!!  Please stop listening to what the media wants you to hear him say and actually listen to what he is saying and what he is trying to say.

 

 

[yjacket]

This is actually a really good article. 

http://blog.dilbert.com/post/151288850856/presidential-temperament

I agree with most of it except with his nicknames . . .but if the worst thing he does as a President is call a foreign leader like Putin the Grouchy Bear or something I can live with that.

[zil]

1 hour ago, yjacket said:

call a foreign leader like Putin the Grouchy Bear

Ah, culture.  In all probability, Putin, and many other Russians, see this as a compliment.  Certainly, without the Grouchy it would be a compliment (bears are very popular in Russia, sort of like lions or eagles here).  And "grouchy" is a genetic descriptor of Russians, so I don't know why any would object.  (I lived and worked there 3 years, so I know a little something about the culture.)

[Blueskye2]

I'm not going to get into personal views on issues. Suffice it to say, I remember the Cold War. I remember nuclear bomb drills. I don't believe they should ever be used.  

Gosh, some Trump stump speech I watched weeks ago. Bomb everyone was pretty much what he was saying. 

And no, I watched the debate. All of it. I turned to my husband and said, Trunp is encouraging the Chinese military to action!  He was NOT saying anything about what Hillary should do. He was suggesting China take action in N Korea  Does he even know about the Korean War? Does he know a China sent millions of soldiers, which we fought? Like I said, stupid on more than one level.

I have a little .22 that I bought to shoot targets with friends  I bought it decades ago, in the 80s.  I haven't shot for 25 years or so. I don't have any shells for it so no I won't be sitting here hoping to shoot anyone.

I don't agree with your views on helping people. If I were pregnant and destitute. I'd want to come here too. WE don't pay for the hospital care of those who can't pay. But whatever. Let's build a wall to keep pregnant women where they belong. That will be soooo cost effective.  

 This last post reminds me of all the reasons I won't vote for Trump. Sorry, one being his supporters are not my kind of people. 

Edited October 4, 2016 by Blueskye2

[zil]

7 minutes ago, Blueskye2 said:

WE don't pay for the hospital care of those who can't pay.

Then who does?  Cuz the Hospital isn't "eating the cost".  The cost of unpaid bills goes into operating expenses which goes into calculating prices, which are paid by, um, people who pay their bills.  So unless you don't pay your bills, you are paying the bills of people who didn't pay their bills.  Just like you're paying the bills of people who shop-lift every time you go to the store and pay for something.  You're also paying the cost of every crime committed in your area, etc. etc.  People who pay are paying for all the people who take without paying.

If you think taxes are paying hospital bills of people who don't pay their own bills, then, um, don't you pay taxes?

No one pays for anything except individual human beings - companies, governments, organizations, charities - none of them pay for anything - they get individual human beings to cover their costs (and then some) - they all take (even the ones that give), and it's from individual human beings that they take.  This is not necessarily good or bad - that depends on the details - but it is fact.

[Blueskye2]

5 minutes ago, zil said:

Then who does?  Cuz the Hospital isn't "eating the cost".  The cost of unpaid bills goes into operating expenses which goes into calculating prices, which are paid by, um, people who pay their bills.  So unless you don't pay your bills, you are paying the bills of people who didn't pay their bills.  Just like you're paying the bills of people who shop-lift every time you go to the store and pay for something.  You're also paying the cost of every crime committed in your area, etc. etc.  People who pay are paying for all the people who take without paying.

If you think taxes are paying hospital bills of people who don't pay their own bills, then, um, don't you pay taxes?

No one pays for anything except individual human beings - companies, governments, organizations, charities - none of them pay for anything - they get individual human beings to cover their costs (and then some) - they all take (even the ones that give), and it's from individual human beings that they take.  This is not necessarily good or bad - that depends on the details - but it is fact.

First off, hospital procedures are expensive because WE sue. A neighbor who didn't have health insurance, and was pregnant, shopped around at hospitals. One made her a deal, that if she would sign away her right to sue, they would deliver her baby for hundreds of dollars instead of thousands. Someone who does not have the right to sue, is by definition being treated at relatively low cost.

Second, the hospitals around here are nonprofit and treat anyone, regardless of their ability to pay. Regardless of insurance status. Their model of operation is not what you are describing. And I doubt that Trump knows or cares how hospital operates. He just wants you to fear people enough to follow him.