Who won the first presidential debate?

Clinton used Trump as a speed bag.
Mrs Transparency actually hit Trump about not releasing his taxes...and Trump let her beat him like a drum without pivoting to questions like A) Who does she owe favors to overseas? B)Clinton Foundation contributes less than 20% to charitable causes C) The people deserve to see your communications as a paid office holder....

Trump was on the defensive all night long...she took the offense and repeatedly drubbed him with talking points...and he rarely hit back...

There's something to be said for a candidate attempting to focus on a positive path forward, but you must be able to attack the opponent on their record...

ron, there is a certain possibility that you are full of shit, and even Donald Trump knows that.

Just under 90% of the Clinton Foundation take goes to programs. So you, like Trump, lie.

Please don't double down and make this blog post yet another Benghazi hearing spectacle. I'll shut you down faster than you can spell your first name.

"A) Who does she owe favors to overseas? B)Clinton Foundation contributes less than 20% to charitable causes"

Still struggling with the whole "believe in reality and don't tell lies" lifestyle eh ron?

ron:

https://www.charitywatch.org/ratings-and-metrics/bill-hillary-chelsea-c…

http://fortune.com/2016/08/27/clinton-foundation-health-work/

Say what you will about the Foundation and it's finances...the point is that Trump got run over in that debate, while having simple retorts where he could have turned the issue of transparency to his favor.

I dunno Ron. I think, in order to be able to use transparency to his favor, Trump would have to be a practitioner of the art. Given his lack of willingness to release his taxes, I'd say he doesn't even get out of the gate on that issue.

Little wonder that both North Korea and Russia endorse Donald Trump for U.S. president. They'll run all over him. And the U.S. by extension.

Donald Trump: Working to make Russia great again.

Q: Why does Donald Trump want to be the U.S. president?
A: So that he can help make Vladimir Putin the CEO of America.

"Say what you will about the Foundation and it’s finances"

It seems ron does not care he told a lie...maybe explains why he is so disappointed with Trump's performance, as Trump usually so easily throws out lies and doesn't care when shown wrong either.

Because of the immediacy of the need to act on climate change Clinton is the only possible moral choice in this election.

#8
I could argue for what I said in the original post, and this whole thread could devolve into a missive on the Clinton Foundation...but again (third time)...that wasn't the point I was attempting to make. I was saying that Trump had easy outs and opportunities to clobber her with her scandals...
which he either passed on or didn't think of...(ill prepared to debate her)

#6
I think a candidate running for office vs an office holder is a bit of a different standard, The FEC disclosures is an adequate distraction.

The whole point of these elections anymore is to make it a referendum on the other candidate. All you have to do is say...if you don't vote me...you get this (very negative) person. So...regardless what my policies or my plans are, you don't want my opponent...therefore...vote against my opponent (something not actually allowed by our system)

What are you talking about? Viewers thought her performance better, pundits right and left agreed and Clinton showed herself to be relaxed and presidential for a national stage: spinning this into a tie is ridiculous. She rallied the dem's with this debate!

"I could argue for what I said in the original post"

You could, but since your original post contained lies, continuing to argue for those would make you a liar.

Oops - you've already made yourself one of those, many times over. Now I get it - you're just trying to be consistent.

#11

While Clinton was better in the debate, thinking ahead you can see it didn't have any effect on the matter. A large portion of Americans have already decided how they are voting: the super lefts are going Clinton, the super rights going Trump, a lot of people aren't voting out of disdain for both, and the Sanders supporters would still vote for a candidate who is not actually campaigning as some sort of statement.

When the media says "Hilary wins debate" it gives extra motivation to the Trump crowd that is convinced the media is reporting not facts or even reasonable opinions but rather malicious lies as part of a grand conspiracy. In other words, Hillary winning a debate fuels the Trumpers moreso than winning undecided voters.

Zach, but as you pointed out, those who would fall for that way of thinking were going to vote Trumpkin Party anyway, and they won't be swayed.

The ultimate effect of HRC winning the debate is to move a small percentage of voters who were NOT yet decided toward voting for her. Its "real" audience is small, but it continues nibbling away at any remaining hope of Trump's that he can gain a few points in the way of uncommitted voters and eke out a win in November. This was good for humanity. Let's see her do it again. And again.

"Everybody who doesn’t care which of the two major candidates will win ... have [sic] been reminded that there is an election coming up, and are now more likely to either not vote for either candidate, or to vote for Trump out of spite."

I fail to understand the logic here, if there is logic. If they genuinely didn't care before the debate, why would they not start tilting a little towards Clinton since she looked enormously better than Trump? Why presume that those who didn't much care are motivated primarily by "spite", rather than apathy sparked by the observation that putting one's trust in politicians is a reliable source of disappointment? Are you suggesting that anyone who wasn't fast enough to get on the Hillary bandwagon should be lumped into the "deplorables" category? If so, it's a serious strategic error. The category is meaningful but has to be kept to a small fraction of the electorate if it is to be useful; see the problems Trump is having from putting over half the populace into the Untermensch category.

I think virtually all Sanders voters who had been Democrats before this year will vote for Clinton, and that Clinton will be able to earn the votes of many who were/are independents. However, I do have to wonder whether, if Sanders had won the nomination, Trump would be polling almost even with him at this point in the game. Before Trump was nominated, I recall saying that if he won the nomination, the Dems would be a lot safer running a real populist against a pseudopopulist than running a BAU neocon against a pseudopopulist. Hopefully we don't find out the hard way that was true.

If you want to hear someone who is full of shit, listen to today's PBS News Hour and hear Shawn Spicer of the RNC tell us that Hillary Clinton constantly interrupted and Trump never did.

I'd best not list any more of his lies, lest I add too many "colorful metaphors."

Re: #15

Yeah, I think it's incumbent upon the candidate and her team to close up the 'enthusiasm gap' if they want to pull undecideds and the apathetic into her train. Bashing certain Bernie supporters is diversionary and unlikely to be productive, IMO.

You can be frustrated that the Democrats fielded a candidate who has, for a significant time, lost ground in polls to Trump and is barely pulling even (against Trump for cristsake!!): but if you feel the need to spout your anger, I'd like to suggest that there is a eminently most worthy object for that named Donald.

Or you know, we can go ahead and do what Democrats have shown a talent for from time to time-- snatching defeat from the jaws of victory...

Being that the main stream media has been almost entirely focused on Donald since the conventions, I'd say this is the first time a lot of voters are actually getting to know Hillary. What they saw was a fighter last night. They saw someone who actually does look presidential. And she was standing across from someone who was all over the board, at times unable to form coherent sentences.

Nate Silver had a tweet out early today showing that "donate hillary" had double the hits of "donate donald" after the debate.

Greg, I think you're wrong. The debate had an enormous audience - over 80 million on TV, and many more who watched online, as I did - that includes lots of people who have just started turning their attention to the election. (Not everyone is a political junkie.) They saw a blustering, bullying, ineffectual Trump and a composed, well-prepared Clinton. There will be a noticeable Clinton bounce.

Mark, of course, you are correct. I hope. I've not seen any bouncy polls yet but I've not checked since early yesterday or the previous evening. Let me know if you see any. It takes a few days for good polls to be done and to be put out, typically about five days.

The debate seems to be structured in such a way that one would have a series of "elevator conversations" about massive topics in #Merica.

Even at that, Trump can't seem to string together a thought without breaking sentences into fragments and grunting.

"It was a tossup because a couple percent of the populous are former Bernie Sanders supporter"

Yeah, but that's because YOU are claiming that to be the case.

We know, quite well, how paranoid you are about Bernie. Get over it, please.

If Trump did win, it wouldn't be because of Bernie voters, but because of TRUMP VOTERS.

"I’d say this is the first time a lot of voters are actually getting to know Hillary"

And that's because the candidacy of Hilary wasn't allowed to be seen until AFTER they'd kept silent and discarded Bernie Sanders.

"Why presume that those who didn’t much care are motivated primarily by “spite”, rather than apathy sparked by the observation that putting one’s trust in politicians is a reliable source of disappointment? "

Because these people aren't doing what Greg demands they do, and therefore they MUST be doing it for really bad reasons. Even if he has to make them up himself and edit facts to fit.

Why is Trump not being hostile to Putin such a bad thing? I am sick of the constant anti-Russian propaganda permeating American media. I come from a country which suffered a lot from Russia. I think Putin is a crook and murderer. But I don't want to see nukes flying around because of Clinton's hawkish politics. We've seen how much damage she's done in Libya and Syria. Trump is a piss-poor candidate but less of a threat to world peace than HRC.

Roman, you got the candidates backwards. Which is forgivable, if you don't live in the U.S. Trump is the one who has asked repeatedly if he can unleash America's nuclear weapons. Clinton is wise enough, experienced enough, under enough self-control, and listens to wise counsel that she will enhance world peace, not threaten it.

Unlike her competition in this election, who already has most of the world's leaders worried about his destructive personality -- and he hasn't won anything yet but the Republican nomination. Given your concerns, you'd best hope, along with the rest of us, that Trump loses. And takes down most of the Republican congressbeings with him.

Roman has this one right.
Trump isn't attempting to draw swords with Russia.

HRC can't say anything approaching neutral about Putin / Russia.

ron, don't forget who's NOT on America's side. Who's seeking to restore his lost Soviet glory.

Donald Trump: Make Russia Great Again!

Try supporting America instead. Both of you.

@Brainstorms

Have you read that? http://foreignpolicy.com/2016/07/27/hillary-the-hawk-a-history-clinton-…

What good has her interventionism done for the world? It only brought instability and suffering.

Not sure about the statistics, if someone could help: how many war appropriations has Trump voted 'yea' on?

"Trump is the one who has asked repeatedly if he can unleash America’s nuclear weapons."

The armed forces, when faced with death for the ego of a narcissistic idiot or telling the president to fuck off will HAPPILY tell Trump to fuck off.

The president doesn't get absolute power, so even if trump won, he'd have no better chance of achieving anything bad than Obama had for anything good.

Then again, you can't trust Trump to actually do as he claims wrt nukes either. He's a bloody moron.

Whose Fault is Trump? Top 7 Culprits
"There are lots of other culprits. You can make your own lists.
But basically what I am saying is, a lot of powerful Americans have a lot to be ashamed about."
http://www.juancole.com/2016/10/whose-fault-culprits.html

A pretty good case for adding reality TV and the entertainment industry to that list was made on NPR the other day.

I suppose you could split out talk radio into it's own category-- or not--and some might cite the demise of the fairness doctrine. But one thing is certain, anybody who supports Trump is a gigantic fool.

Oh damn. Mess up the HTML tags and your stuff looks like a Desertphile post.

Oh, for a comment preview feature!

I'm sorry. I can't let #32 stand as is.

Whose Fault is Trump? Top 7 Culprits
“There are lots of other culprits. You can make your own lists.
But basically what I am saying is, a lot of powerful Americans have a lot to be ashamed about.”
http://www.juancole.com/2016/10/whose-fault-culprits.html

A pretty good case for adding reality TV and the entertainment industry to that list was made on NPR the other day.

I suppose you could split out talk radio into it’s own category– or not–and some might cite the demise of the fairness doctrine. But one thing is certain, anybody who supports Trump is a gigantic fool.

A gigantic fool helping to collectively press the nuclear button on America. And possibly, the world.

"But basically what I am saying is, a lot of powerful Americans have a lot to be ashamed about.”

Which would include Trump, except he doesn't know what he's talking about, or cares.

"how many war appropriations has Trump voted ‘yea’ on?"

Every single one he's been present for.

"What good has her interventionism done for the world?"

And when Trump insists that Mexico will pay for the wall, how is that NOT inverventionism???

About that Clinton Foundation...

http://tinyurl.com/jhb85yu

#7

You are joking....right...

#40, it's a joke, but a joke with a point. Donald Trump simply adores authoritarian dictators. Including his idol, Putin.

And those misguided souls who support him seem to have a common characteristic of preferring an authoritarian government to a democratic government.

That will NOT make America great again. It will make it like the Soviet Union...

(Go Debian!)

Hey guys, maybe instead of using recycled Cold War-era rhetoric to defend Clinton, you could explain:
- why Clinton Foundation staffers were tracking Wall Street's donations to Democrat politicians?
- why were they comparing the donation amounts to TARP funds received?
- what did they mean by "Pay to Play"?

Sorry, but in the UK this would be considered devastating for a politician.

And in the U.S. we have Donald Trump with a lifetime of reprehensible/illicit/illegal behaviors that would not only be devastating for a politician, but would land them in jail for years.

Elections in the U.S. are not "A or B or no one". It's relative, and this year it's no contest: Vote against Trump and save the nation. Even if he were running against my dog Spot. Or against another crooked conservative. Doesn't matter. Vote against Trump.

You can say that, because you are sheltered from the worst outcomes of Clinton's failed, almost-neocon hawkish foreign policies.

If I lived in Libya or Syria, I'd be posting YT videos begging Americans to vote for anyone but Clinton.

"Elections in the U.S. are not “A or B or no one”."

And, yet again, you're bringing up complete nonsequiturs.

DOES NOT MATTER if it's "A or B or No one", or "A, B, C, D, E, F or the Great Green Arklesiezure". If A is evil and B is evil, but B is less evil than the other, VOTING FOR B IS STILL VOTING FOR EVIL.

Tell me, since I accept, at least in principle, it isn't "A or B or No One", why is it not still voting for evil if I vote for the lesser evil???

And, this time, try something that actually follows on.

"If I lived in Libya or Syria, I’d be posting YT videos begging Americans to vote for anyone but Clinton."

And since Brainstorm validates the "Vote for this horrible candidate, because the other one is WORSE", this would be ENTIRELY CONSISTENT AND VALID to support.

Since I don't ascribe to the frigging idiotic idea, I can tell Roman this is a really bad reason to vote Trump.

try something that actually follows on.

I am following on, but you're dodging. Again. And not very artfully at that.

VOTING FOR B IS STILL VOTING FOR EVIL.

You still have yet to offer any suggestions of what to do about your quandry. We're all waiting. (And you've yet to define evil for us, in this context.)

What is the meaning of "voting for evil", and what is your suggested solution to avoid this thing you find so distasteful? The American election system does not seem to provide you with a satisfactory set of options (and I've gone to apparently wasted pains to explain that to you), so tell us: How do you propose to change the U.S. system such that it will make you happy with the available outcomes?

(And please, try to quell the capitalized rantings about evil this and evil that... Have a cup of tea, calm down, and lay out your suggestions in a normal tone.)

" try something that actually follows on."

I am following on,"

Only in a temporal sense. I meant logically following on.

"You still have yet to offer any suggestions of what to do about your quandry."

Another nonsequitur.

I DO NOT HAVE TO. Failure to have a good option is not disproof of the statement "Voting for the lesser evil is still voting for evil". Despite the fact I have given several already.

a) Vote for the bigger one. Stop boiling frogs.
b) Vote for the one you want instead.
c) Don't vote.

They are ALL alternatives for

d) Vote the lesser evil.

and ALL given earlier.

"What is the meaning of “voting for evil”"

The same as "voting for the lesser evil". IF you demand a concrete example, voting Hilary rather than Trump.

"and what is your suggested solution to avoid this thing you find so distasteful? "

See above.

"The American election system does not seem to provide you with a satisfactory set of options"

They do. See above. If you mean"suitable candidate options", I've given several above again, the one Desertphile cannot avail himself of because of the current laws, and for that I've given a suggestion there too.

But the existence of these examples do not seem to impinge on your consciousness, so I wonder why you are demanding them as if their lack were some proof I was wrong, when they do no such thing, they'd only indicate the lack of any better option.

"How do you propose to change the U.S. system such that it will make you happy with the available outcomes?"

Point out to the lazy thinkers that "Vote for this crap candidate, because the other one is worse" is a damn stupid thing to do and the REASON you're in this state today.

Look, smearing yourself in the excrement of hospital patients is a bad idea. But the fact that you're already smeared in it by your own actions DOES NOT CHANGE THAT FACT. And the fact that you're already in the state and would have to actually clean it up yourself DOES NOT make being covered in excrement the best thing available at this moment because you don't happen to have a bar of soap with you. All I can do is point out you're covered in it, and that this is unhealthy and you should never get yourself in that state voluntarily.

YOU think "Hilary is better than Trump", but Trump supporters think Trump is better than Hilary. And that means your "ideals" lead to Trump leading UNLESS YOU DO AS HIS SUPPORTERS DO. Do YOU think they have anything better than "Hilary is worse" to his suitability for the job? Even Trump thinks that's his best card.

And, as you've ignored, all a politician has to do to get your vote, despite their obvious inability to do the job, is to make you believe that the other candidate is worse. Which, of course, is made far far easier by you thinking there's only two candidates.

The politician KNOWS that they haven't an need to listen to you or do anything other than screw you over, as long as they convince you that the other candidate is worse. And it doesn't even have to be true.

Wow,

I have some sympathy for what you are saying. Nevertheless, I'll be voting for Hillary. The situation is just too ridiculous not to.

Next time around, if I think the country is getting locked into becoming ungovernable or completely debauched politically, I may indeed vote (or not vote) in protest. We may be coming close to that point, but I don't think we're quite there yet (remembering that regardless of the outcome of this election, Trump supporters will not simply be going away).

Otherwise, wrt your logic, I'd simply point out that every vote can be viewed as the lesser of two evils depending on your disposition. Logic that can't accommodate realpolitik risks being unuseful and sterile.

"I have some sympathy for what you are saying. Nevertheless, I’ll be voting for Hillary. The situation is just too ridiculous not to. "

Aye, and that's fine as your decision. For some, that's not sufficient, Desertphile being one of them. Me, I'd find someone to vote FOR, or not vote at all.

However, unlike some, I'm not insisting that the ONLY MORAL CHOICE is to do as I do.

All I AM insisting on is a frank look at the truth of the situation.

Chose the least worse? Still doesn't make it a GOOD option, just the least worst.

And this is not merely just pickyness. If you don't acknowledge the reality, and accept that, yes, you ARE voting the "lesser evil" (unless you think Hilary IS actually good, in which case you don't see this as the lesser evil, so the claim is moot, because you're voting FOR Hilary, not AGAINST Trump). Because when you accept that reality, you can weigh the situation every time it comes up and, at some point in the spectrum of options, you will decide otherwise.

If you live in denial of this fact, that voting the lesser evil is still voting evil, at the very least, you will be predictable and led around by anyone amoral enough to take advantage of you.

If you decide, as you have, to vote Hilary because you hope to avoid the catastrophe, fair enough.

But others will make their own decision.

Hell, they may have voted against Shrub rather than for Obama, but have decided that Hilary is even less appealing than Obama at the same position of presidential hopeful. Or they may decide that if Reed runs DNC next time that he would be beyond the pale.

And the reason to let it be know is so that politicians would NOT see "If I can demonise my opponent, I win by default, the two best words in the English language!!!" as a winning strategy to run with.

And even if you think Hilary perfectly fine and voting FOR her, you got to admit that's a worthwhile reason to say it.

"Otherwise, wrt your logic, I’d simply point out that every vote can be viewed as the lesser of two evils depending on your disposition. "

No. Actually if you're voting FOR someone,you're NOT "voting the lesser of two evils", you're voting for someone who merely isn't perfectly matched in your opinion.

That's not the same as the lesser of two evils.

So remember that you CAN criticise Hilary for bad things (just like you could with Obama) and this isn't calling her "lesser evil". Only making your argument "Trump is WORSE!!!" is making the claim of Hilary being the lesser evil.

disproof of the statement “Voting for the lesser evil is still voting for evil”.

Who in the world ever made any attempt at arguing a disproof of that statement? (And don't embarrass yourself by claiming it was me. Your [mis]interpretations are your own business, so don't be making claims about something that was never written.)

Speaking of misinterpretations... Oy!

“and what is your suggested solution to avoid this thing you find so distasteful? ”

See above.

Voting. ::yawn:: That's what I was discussing and advocating. (And you've been ignoring, other than to plug into some standard rant inspired by your pet peeve.) Why are you in a tizzy (beyond getting wound up about your perceived evil, whatever that may be?

as if their lack were some proof I was wrong,

Never did I write claiming that you were wrong. But I will write this: You are confused. And mildly entertaining, too (watching you spin in self-righteousness and rants about evil, which you stridently refuse to define for us).

“Vote for this crap candidate, because the other one is worse” is a damn stupid thing to do and the REASON you’re in this state today.

Then, praytell, who SHOULD we be voting for? And what is your solution to the quandry you've got your knickers all in a twist over when the only candidates on the ballot are those that you have a personal vendetta with over their being evil, whatever you invent that to be?

this is unhealthy and you should never get yourself in that state voluntarily.

This is getting annoying. You're back to arguing that we should be able to vote "no candidate" or "leave the seat empty". I keep having to point out to you that this is not an option in the U.S. election system. You degenerate into a rant in response. We're to take you seriously then??

And that means your “ideals” lead to Trump

You, for whom the phrase, "That's a non sequitur" is a favorite, are blasting out some nice examples of non sequiturs there.

make you believe that the other candidate is worse.

Allow me to dispel some of your confusion (or at least attempt to; you'll likely deflect yet again): That is incorrect. The candidate himself is doing an excellent job of making (at least) 54% of the voting public in the U.S. believe that he is worse. It really doesn't matter who runs against him; that's not part of the judgment when assessing Trump.

as long as they convince you that the other candidate is worse.

And just as you continue to resist listening to me, I am not listening to these candidates you so readily accuse. As I am not listening to them, why is this an issue?

All we've gotten out of you so far as to what should be done to resolve this mental distress of yours is:

* Vote for who you think is better,
* Vote for who you prefer,
* Let others vote for you.

and the last option is unacceptably anti-American, un-patriotic, foolish, and allows people like Trump, Putin, Gaddafi, and Saddam Hussein get into power.

You should be advocating that people run for office and that the populace vote, and not throw out poorly thought-out suggestions that they not vote at all.

But, by all means, rant on. I highly doubt that you're in any sufficiently sane and mature state of mind that you'll actually address these things and lay out a cogent argument for a solution. You seem to be satisfied only to rant. Perhaps I'm helping make you happy now by giving you more grist for your mill. Have at it, and Wow us, capitals and all.

"Who in the world ever made any attempt at arguing a disproof of that statement? "

Why then did you proclaim my error when I said it??? If you did not take exception to it, why all the wailing and gnashing of teeth???

"All we’ve gotten out of you so far as to what should be done to resolve this mental distress of yours is"

Uh, whose mental distress? ALL I did was point out that voting for the lesser evil was still voting for evil, then get annoyed when you make out that this is not the case by posting nonsequtur statements after quoting my factual statement.

My only "distress" is at your incapacity at making any formal point here.

You remember those deniers, right? They FEEL intensely about either AGW, the proponents of the theory, or the proposals to avoid the problem, and that causes them to flail about witlessly trying to find some "reason" why those they don't agree with are WRONG.

YOU *FEEL* equally intensely about hilary voting (or even just nonvoting). And you are acting in the exact same manner they do.

Giving me the same distress at someone who can, at least theoretically, think logically, but refuses to even attempt it.

That there are options, and I gave them, BEFORE you demanded them, means that Vote Hilary is NOT the only option.

It's the bare truth.

I couldn't give a rat's ass if you want to vote for Hilary because Trump is bad. I want you to acknowledge it so that you indicate some actual brainstem activity in your voting strategy.

Without that, you're no better than Born Trumpers.

To further the concept that the Clinton Foundation is a bit less than honorable...refuting response #2

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ApcqXijVzYU

The video is from a "progressive" news outlet. Anyone accusing them of being anything to the right of the spectrum is on a different planet.