Final Debate 10/19/2016

[This_person]

Given the incredibly low bar that has been set for him, Mr. Trump had his best debate last night....for about 30-40 minutes. You could see the anger building on his face...his eyes got squintier, that stupid pout got more pronounced and then for the remainder of the debate he was the churlish child he always is.

I would say they both broke down pretty bad last night the further in they got. I do believe Clinton lost it first and most, but her tell is her condescending and arrogant smirk, followed by her yelling. They were both really childish.

To his credit, Trump has shown a steady increase in his ability to hold it together, and Clinton has shown a steady decline in her demeanor. Telling for the future.

Most of you on here will obviously agree with the "nasty woman" comment. However, (unless you were born under the front porch and raised by wolves) an adult should understand those are not the words that should come out of the mouth of a candidate for President of the United States. Once again, Mr. Trump presented himself as unqualified for the job.

You are correct I would agree she's a hideously nasty person. You might be surprised, but I also agree that was inappropriate for a presidential candidate - much like saying one is proud of having the entire other party be her "enemy", or that those with whom she disagrees are deplorable and/or irredeemable. If we're looking for presentations of being unqualified for the job, they've both done it to greater and lesser degrees at various points.

Ms. Clinton had rough spots, non-answers (Mr. Trump had more as he clearly has very little clue about anything) and her repeated comment about not adding a penny to the debt was quite stupid (Of course, Mr. Trump's economic "plan" is as he so often likes to say a disaster from the standpoint of debt).

I am impressed with you. You were able to actually bring a negative thought about Clinton into your continued tirade against Trump. That's the closest to fair and honest you've been for some time. Nice job!

Ms. Clinton obviously tried to project an image of a positive future. Mr. Trump could do nothing but paint a dark and dank picture.

Ms. Clinton's closing statement was positive and forward looking. She actually provided reasons why someone should vote FOR her. Mr. Trump's closing statement was a rambling mess. He has no answer as to why someone should vote FOR him...he offered many reasons why someone should vote AGAINST Ms. Clinton...for those who don't understand...there is a very big difference.

Personally, I disagree with all of this. Clinton promised to be 4-8 more years of Obama, and Trump promised to change things for the better instead of the status quo.

Once again, side by side Ms. Clinton looked and sounded more presidential...mostly because Mr. Trump does not look or sound presidential in the least.

Quite frankly, neither one did. They fought like children, name-calling and "nuh-uh, you are" statements on both sides, smart-ass quips, etc.

Again, Trump was better than before, showing a consistently-improving trend; Clinton performed more poorly than before in temperament, which was worse than the previous time, showing a consistently-declining trend.

The clear winner of the debate was Chris Wallace. He did the best job of the three debate moderators.

On this, we can agree fully.

 

[SamSpade]

To be frank, accepting the result is a stupid question. Gore didn't "accept" it - Kerry didn't "accept it" (at first).
Eventually they both had to resign themselves to the inevitable outcome.

I was pretty sure Romney could pull it off. But he didn't. Had to suck it in for another four years.
Same with O'Malley's re-election. Deal with it.

Will he like losing? Who likes losing?

 

[crabcake]

On the topic of these wikileaks emails, I'd just like to point out that - twice now - Hillary has (IMO) essentially confirmed they ARE legitimate by her response in these last two debates. When asked in the last one about her public/private position, she didn't say "those emails and their contents were not validated by my staff to be accurate/factual, so I will not be commenting on them " ... no, she responded saying "I was talking about 'ol Honest Abe" (paraphrasing of course). And last night, again when asked about her statement in the leaked email, she didn't refute the legitimacy of her words in the email; she added her "clarity" to her words in the email.

IMO her lack of denial TWICE of their legitimacy is an admission or 'acceptance' of their legitimacy by her.

 

[Hijinx]

Given the incredibly low bar that has been set for him, Mr. Trump had his best debate last night....for about 30-40 minutes. You could see the anger building on his face...his eyes got squintier, that stupid pout got more pronounced and then for the remainder of the debate he was the churlish child he always is.

Most of you on here will obviously agree with the "nasty woman" comment. However, (unless you were born under the front porch and raised by wolves) an adult should understand those are not the words that should come out of the mouth of a candidate for President of the United States. Once again, Mr. Trump presented himself as unqualified for the job.

Ms. Clinton had rough spots, non-answers (Mr. Trump had more as he clearly has very little clue about anything) and her repeated comment about not adding a penny to the debt was quite stupid (Of course, Mr. Trump's economic "plan" is as he so often likes to say a disaster from the standpoint of debt).

Ms. Clinton obviously tried to project an image of a positive future. Mr. Trump could do nothing but paint a dark and dank picture.

Ms. Clinton's closing statement was positive and forward looking. She actually provided reasons why someone should vote FOR her. Mr. Trump's closing statement was a rambling mess. He has no answer as to why someone should vote FOR him...he offered many reasons why someone should vote AGAINST Ms. Clinton...for those who don't understand...there is a very big difference.

Once again, side by side Ms. Clinton looked and sounded more presidential...mostly because Mr. Trump does not look or sound presidential in the least.

The clear winner of the debate was Chris Wallace. He did the best job of the three debate moderators.

We Thank you for your very biased opinion.

I saw no clear winner last night. Wallace asked some tough questions, and got scripted answers from Hillary.
She was very well schooled, her trainers did a good job, but she lacked the skill to make her answers look like they were not scripted.
Hillary is very good at spouting platitudes, she has spouted these same platitudes for 30 years and as Trump says ----done nothing.

 

[vraiblonde]

Now - I wish Trump was more effective as a speaker.

Me, too, but he's not a speaker - he's a doer. Ideally he'd have gotten that admission out of the way on the first debate: "I'm not a polished orator like Hillary. I don't rehearse for weeks on end for every speech. I do not ask for your vote because I am a great speaker; I ask your vote because I am a doer, and that is something she clearly is not."

Why is that so hard?

And I agree - his "wrong" and "you're the puppet" sound childish.

 

[This_person]

Why is that so hard?

Because, um, he's not a polished speaker

 

[vraiblonde]

And please, spare me the whole "temperament to be POTUS" thing.

What does that even mean, anyway? I keep hearing that from the parrots: "Trump doesn't have the temperament to be president." Because...what? They think he's going to get in a spat with the wife and nuke China? If they're talking about his "I want to win" attitude, isn't that exactly what we want in a president? After 8 years of being losers under Obama, don't we want to win for a change?

 

[vraiblonde]

Because, um, he's not a polished speaker

But he has campaign people - Kellyanne, I'm talking to you, girl - that are supposed to be focusing him and refining his strategy. If some dummy like me can come up with that, why can't they? Address the problem and put it away for good. He goes into it already admitting he's not a polished speaker, lowering the expectations that he will be one, and take it off the table. Turn it into a positive, which it is, instead of the negative that he's allowed them to make it.

 

[This_person]

What does that even mean, anyway? I keep hearing that from the parrots: "Trump doesn't have the temperament to be president." Because...what? They think he's going to get in a spat with the wife and nuke China? If they're talking about his "I want to win" attitude, isn't that exactly what we want in a president? After 8 years of being losers under Obama, don't we want to win for a change?

The idea is that he would PMS and do something bad - like the ancient argument against women in positions of power.

It would be interesting to hear him articulate it that way, and show how stupid it is on its face by doing so.

 

[This_person]

But he has campaign people - Kellyanne, I'm talking to you, girl - that are supposed to be focusing him and refining his strategy. If some dummy like me can come up with that, why can't they? Address the problem and put it away for good. He goes into it already admitting he's not a polished speaker, lowering the expectations that he will be one, and take it off the table. Turn it into a positive, which it is, instead of the negative that he's allowed them to make it.

My guess is they're trying to help him, but in terms of his personal conduct he is not overly willing to listen and follow advice. He'll change MAJOR policy concepts, but not his demeanor.

Obviously, this is all just guessing, but it seems to me to be what's happening.

 

[vraiblonde]

Hillary is very good at spouting platitudes, she has spouted these same platitudes for 30 years and as Trump says ----done nothing.

And four years from now when she's running for re-election, she'll be spouting those exact same talking points. "I will fight for women and children! I will fight for African Americans! I want all Americans to enjoy prosperity!"

And there will be zero evidence that she's ever actually done anything of value for women, children, African Americans, or any American at all.

Her contentious attitude toward Putin alone should make voters run screaming away from her. Trump is right that world leaders should have a working relationship. In Hillary's little tiny world, you can just ignore problems and the media will cover them up for you - worked for her husband for 8 years.

My other thought is that I would not like to be president after Barack Obama. That turd has spent 8 years blaming Bush for his own ineptness. Who is Hillary going to blame?

 

[GURPS]

And four years from now when she's running for re-election ...

I don't think she will live that long

 

[PsyOps]

What does that even mean, anyway? I keep hearing that from the parrots: "Trump doesn't have the temperament to be president." Because...what? They think he's going to get in a spat with the wife and nuke China? If they're talking about his "I want to win" attitude, isn't that exactly what we want in a president? After 8 years of being losers under Obama, don't we want to win for a change?

We know it's nothing more than a scare tactic. Dems are trying to put in the voters' hearts that Trump would actually use nukes at the first chance he gets. But since the left wants to get ridiculous about this, it needs to be pointed out that the only time nukes were used was at the orders of a democrat president.

 

[Clem72]

The idea is that he would PMS and do something bad - like the ancient argument against women in positions of power.

It would be interesting to hear him articulate it that way, and show how stupid it is on its face by doing so.

I know it's futile to try and argue any point with you so I will simply ask for clarification.

You think the ancient argument (that you don't agree with) that women as a group can be subject to mood swings due to PMS related hormonal surges, therefore a specific woman wouldn't be fit for a position of power is equivalent to the argument that Trump wouldn't be fit for the presidency based on his long history of publicly displayed instability, mood swings, and poor judgment (which you also may not agree with)?

 

[This_person]

I know it's futile to try and argue any point with you so I will simply ask for clarification.

You think the ancient argument (that you don't agree with) that women as a group can be subject to mood swings due to PMS related hormonal surges, therefore a specific woman wouldn't be fit for a position of power is equivalent to the argument that Trump wouldn't be fit for the presidency based on his long history of publicly displayed instability, mood swings, and poor judgment (which you also may not agree with)?

Those classes clearly did not work for you, as starting a discussion with "it's futile to try" doesn't really engender much faith that you will have an open mind in discussions. However, I will rise above your barb and attempt to clarify.

Women, as a group, certainly can be subject to mood swings, but the arguments of the chauvinists was that mood swings should disqualify in general, and in specific, women from holding offices of higher power. Trump has mood swings, and the argument is being made against him that having mood swings disqualifies him from holding higher office. Both of these asinine discriminatory assumptions assumes that a simple mood swing would be grounds for a person pushing a grand and horrific idea through the processes to put their ideas into motion.

Trump can seemingly come unhinged. Trump has demonstrated poor judgment. Trump has also demonstrated exceptional judgment, and strong stability in other situations. That would make him human, like a woman freaking out on PMS, or a guy freaking out on a Monday because his team lost on Sunday, or any person who just got into a huge fight with their sibling over some stupid crap from childhood, or....well, or any other human frailty.

 

[Clem72]

One of the last things Clinton said during the debate was that there is a disadvantage in the Social Security system for women?

Does anyone know the details of this argument, other than a silly call back to women having lesser wages than men (which has nothing to do with SS)?

Best I can see it, given women live so much longer on average than men and that they are much more likely to receive spousal benefits from SS than men, the system must be paying them a heck of a lot more than men while receiving less. How is that disadvantaged?

 

[crabcake]

One of the last things Clinton said during the debate was that there is a disadvantage in the Social Security system for women?

Does anyone know the details of this argument, other than a silly call back to women having lesser wages than men (which has nothing to do with SS)?

Best I can see it, given women live so much longer on average than men and that they are much more likely to receive spousal benefits from SS than men, the system must be paying them a heck of a lot more than men while receiving less. How is that disadvantaged?

Here is an article from 2012 layout out some 'arguments', none of which I'll refute or confirm (I haven't had enough caffeine yet this morning).

http://money.usnews.com/money/blogs...5/11/how-to-improve-social-security-for-women

 

[Clem72]

Women, as a group, certainly can be subject to mood swings, but the arguments of the chauvinists was that mood swings should disqualify in general, and in specific, women from holding offices of higher power. Trump has mood swings, and the argument is being made against him that having mood swings disqualifies him from holding higher office. Both of these asinine discriminatory assumptions assumes that a simple mood swing would be grounds for a person pushing a grand and horrific idea through the processes to put their ideas into motion.

I think we are keying off of two different parts of that comparison (mood swings vs someone assuming to be possessed of mood swings). If the argument that mood swings should disqualify someone from a position of power is what you were referring to, then that would seem to be an apt comparison and I appreciate the clarification.

However, I read the comparison somewhat differently. The biggest issue with the old argument was that it assumed someone would be unfit because they belonged to a group that is often unfit (based on whatever criteria), vs the Trump argument that he is unfit based on his direct display of that criteria.

 

[Midnightrider]

To be frank, accepting the result is a stupid question. Gore didn't "accept" it - Kerry didn't "accept it" (at first).
Eventually they both had to resign themselves to the inevitable outcome.

I was pretty sure Romney could pull it off. But he didn't. Had to suck it in for another four years.
Same with O'Malley's re-election. Deal with it.

Will he like losing? Who likes losing?

i think there is a difference between asking for a recount in a very tight race and not accepting the resutls because you thought the election was rigged. remember, the litigation was about a manual recount that was allowed by the election rules, but where the election offical (i cant remember her title) refused to wait for the results from the recount.

 

[vraiblonde]

i think there is a difference between asking for a recount in a very tight race and not accepting the resutls because you thought the election was rigged. remember, the litigation was about a manual recount that was allowed by the election rules, but where the election offical (i cant remember her title) refused to wait for the results from the recount.

My question to you is this:

If there is evidence of voter fraud and credible questions regarding the legitimacy of the election, do you feel Trump should just accept it and move on, or should he challenge it?