POTUS 2016 General Election Discussion Thread

[JPhillips]

"I haven't thought much about NATO" should be the end of his campaign.

[cuervo72]

Originally Posted by Ben E Lou

Did Megyn Kelly take a shot at Hannity? What I *thought* I heard her say was "Donald Trump is with Sean Hannity right now. We'll see if he talks to the journalists in the room." Did I hear that correctly?

Heh, yep - I raised an eyebrow at that. But I wasn't sure if it was a dig at him or the journalists (that's seen as an insult there, right??).

[Ben E Lou]

He really did miss a wide-open opportunity on cyber-security.

[cartman]

Originally Posted by Ben E Lou

He really did miss a wide-open opportunity on cyber-security.

Are you angling to be the "Fat to Fit Czar" for all of those 400 pound hackers?

[RedKingGold]

Trump's post-debate comments to Fox News and CNN also suggest he realizes a missed opportunity in bringing up Bill/Monica in response to the feminism questions/response at the end of the debate.

[larrymcg421]

Originally Posted by RedKingGold

Trump's post-debate comments to Fox News and CNN also suggest he realizes a missed opportunity in bringing up Bill/Monica in response to the feminism questions/response at the end of the debate.

I guarantee she had a response prepared for that.

[JPhillips]

[lungs]

A lot of people are saying Trump is on coke, which is ridiculous. People on cocaine love to talk about their specific plans for the future.

— Josh Gondelman (@joshgondelman) September 27, 2016

[booradley]

Originally Posted by RedKingGold

OK, she is officially killing Trump.

Oh no - he killed himself. Even the PBS nerds (whom I happily watched) granted Trump the first half-hour, but then ... oh lawsy.

My favorite bit was during the cybersecurity "debate", when Trump randomly throws in the fact (I guess) that he has a 10 year-old son who's so good with computers "it's amazing."

WTF does that have to do with anything? And on and on it went ...

[cuervo72]

And here come the claims that Holt was biased because he asked Trump hard questions where he had to defend himself!

[Thomkal]

Originally Posted by Ben E Lou

I think he just has a bit of a cold.

It could be pneumonia!

[lighthousekeeper]

I didn't watch the vast majority of the debate, so I'll just assume, based on the Drudge poll results, that Trump absolutely destroyed Hillary.

[Thomkal]

Well probably to no one surprise, I thought Hillary did well in the debate. She stood there for 90+ minutes and took everything Trump threw at her mostly well. She didn't look to be affected by the pneumonia, I'm not sure she ever drank any water. Trump sounded like he needed to blow his nose early on, and drank every chance he got. I loved her response to his stamina ramble. "I sat in front of a Republican subcommittee for 13 hours, etc." She was clearly ready to debate him, I was worried they had over-prepared.

Let's face it, there is never going to be a good response by Clinton over her emails-I like this this time she didn't try to shift he blame to Colin Powell or her staff. Trump was at his best in attacking her on it, and I'm sure that will resonate with some voters.

But boy did he go off the deep end on the birther question though. CNN had Hillary's campaign manager on after the debate, and also showed an interview with her and Wolf about it. Claimed whatever Trump said was wrong, who was responsible for it, told Obama's campaign manager about it and apologized for it then. So no matter what websites Trumps' team keep yelling about, its just not true Hillary started or had anything to do with the birther movement. I thought it went all downhill for Trump after that-hated how he kept interrupting her and the moderator, and I liked Hillary closed her debate.

CNN had a group of undecided voters, 20 I think-18 said Hillary won. They commented on another group on another network 16 to 6 had Hillary winning. CNN had a poll of some 600 debate watchers (with the caveat that more democrats than Republicans in the group and they went 67-26% Clinton. After all that, I'm not sure it was enough to move people away from Trump because of the stink of Benghazi and the emails around her.

[mckerney]

So the ‘Keepin' It 1600’ crew took up @realDonaldTrump on his plea to call Sean Hannity... #debatenight #debates2016 pic.twitter.com/2qf2QoTflC

— The Ringer (@ringer) September 27, 2016

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

PredictIt has gone from .63 before the debate to .69 now.

Hillary jumped from -210 to -255 on my offshore sportsbook right after the debate.

[NobodyHere]

My post debate analysis:

If you liked Clinton then Clinton won

If you liked Trump them Trump won.

IcanwishforCarsonWentz?

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

Amusing to read this thread after the debate. We get it, FOFC, you lean just a little to the left.

I don't think you have to lean to the left to know what happened tonight.

[Neon_Chaos]

Im not even from the United States and it's clear as day who won that debate.

(Hint, not Trump)

[Dutch]

If this was a hockey game, Trump won the first period, but lost the last two.

[tarcone]

Originally Posted by NobodyHere

My post debate analysis:

If you liked Clinton then Clinton won

If you liked Trump them Trump won.

IcanwishforCarsonWentz?

This.

And I imagine Trump stirred up the anti-establishment.

Clinton may have looked better as a debater. But Trump looked better as an "outsider".

[Kodos]

Maybe we need outsiders to become air traffic controllers. Surely, total ignorance is the way to go with a complicated job like that. Outsiders using common sense would obviously do a better job than people who have trained for the job for years. Right?

[JPhillips]

Let the great microphone conspiracy of 2016 begin!

Donald Trump on Tuesday morning complained that during the Monday night debate, his microphone was malfunctioning and that the volume was lower than that of Hillary Clinton's microphone.

"I had a problem with a microphone that didn't work," he said on "Fox and Friends." "My microphone was terrible. I wonder, was it set up that way on purpose? My microphone, in the room they couldn't hear me, you know, it was going on and off. Which isn't exactly great. I wonder if it was set up that way, but it was terrible."

"It was on and off, and it was much lower than hers. I don't want to believe in conspiracy theories, of course, but it was much lower than hers and it was crackling, and she didn't have that problem," he added. "That to me was a bad problem, you have a bum mic, it’s not exactly good."

Trunmp also insisted that he does not have a cold or allergies when asked whether he was sniffling during the debate.

"No, no sniffles. No, You know, the mic was very bad, but maybe it was good enough to hear breathing, but there was no sniffles," he said on "Fox and Friends."

[cuervo72]

Some of these are really good.

The Funniest Internet Reactions To Monday Night’s Presidential Debates

[stevew]

80% of drudge readers think trump won, so it must be true

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by stevew

80% of drudge readers think trump won, so it must be true

Sportsdigs had this take 2 weeks ago.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by Dutch

If this was a hockey game, Trump won the first period, but lost the last two.

If this was a hockey game, Trump came out of the first period with a respectable 2-1 lead, shipped 5 goals and pulled his goalie in the 2nd, and then lost his first 3 lines to instigator penalties in the 3rd.

Anyway... where's Maple Leafs when you need him?

[Logan]

Originally Posted by booradley

My favorite bit was during the cybersecurity "debate", when Trump randomly throws in the fact (I guess) that he has a 10 year-old son who's so good with computers "it's amazing."

WTF does that have to do with anything? And on and on it went ...

He sounded like my grandmother after I showed her how to click the lever on a slot machine game we had on our Compaq Presario in 1996.

[booradley]

Originally Posted by lighthousekeeper

I didn't watch the vast majority of the debate, so I'll just assume, based on the Drudge poll results, that Trump absolutely destroyed Hillary.

I voted for Clinton on that Drudge poll last night, and I wasn't given the option to look at the results afterward. Maybe their server was overwhelmed, but I had a good laugh.

Currently, that poll has 82.31% of participants voting for a Trump debate victory. I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that most of those folks didn't actually watch the debate last night. Wowsers ...

[Ben E Lou]

"folks"

[Ben E Lou]

Ah...there it is:

Donald Trump Won First Presidential Debate, According to Online Polls : People.com

[Ben E Lou]

Actually that link doesn't suggest what I am assuming...that those votes aren't from "folks."

[kcchief19]

I'm can't believe we haven't discussed the possibility that Trump is an FOF fan and banned FOFC member/leader of the alt-right.

“I have a tremendous income,” Trump said. “And the reason I say that is not in a braggadocious way. It’s because it’s about time that this country had somebody running it that has an idea about money.”

What is striking about that statement — beyond the juxtaposition of “I have a tremendous income” and “not in a braggadocious way” — is the use of the word braggadocious. It is an uncommon adjective, appearing in English-language books far less regularly than synonyms like arrogant or boastful. As told by Google Trends (which offers a rough snapshot of spikes in search-engine popularity), interest in the word peaked twice in the past half-decade.

[booradley]

Originally Posted by Ben E Lou

Actually that link doesn't suggest what I am assuming...that those votes aren't from "folks."

You seem to be hung up on a pretty simple word. "Folks" means people, human beings, homo sapiens ... If you're trying to read something else into it, you're wasting your time. But that's the internet for you.

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by booradley

You seem to be hung up on a pretty simple word. "Folks" means people, human beings, homo sapiens ... If you're trying to read something else into it, you're wasting your time. But that's the internet for you.

Uh, no.

I'm suggesting that they're neither folks, people, human beings, nor homo sapiens,.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

If this was a hockey game, Trump came out of the first period with a respectable 2-1 lead, shipped 5 goals and pulled his goalie in the 2nd, and then lost his first 3 lines to instigator penalties in the 3rd.

Anyway... where's Maple Leafs when you need him?

Meanwhile....Rubio's on the bench....if coach would've put me in, things would've been different.

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by Dutch

Meanwhile....Rubio's on the bench....if coach would've put me in, things would've been different.

I was thinking that I'd love to see a Republican like, say, Paul Ryan and HRC have a serious policy-wonk debate in last night's format of having some space to reply back and forth. That was one thing that frustrated me last night: there was *ample* room for not just the 2-minute response, but for genuine back and forth on issues. But it was wasted with that pair up there. I suspect it'd bore most of the country to tears, though.

[QuikSand]

Originally Posted by kcchief19

I'm can't believe we haven't discussed the possibility that Trump is an FOF fan and banned FOFC member/leader of the alt-right.

not enough ggggggg

I did have the same thought, though...

[CU Tiger]

FWIW, I think Hillary clearly owned the debate and yet I'd still vote for Trump over her.

Most Presidential decisions aren't dictated by who reacts fastest.

[CU Tiger]

Originally Posted by Ben E Lou

Not a registered Republican, but have never voted Democrat for POTUS (and extremely rarely for other offices). She won this hands down. No question. (And as I mentioned, he's getting criticized by everyone over at Fox other than Hannity right now.)

+1

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by CU Tiger

FWIW, I think Hillary clearly owned the debate and yet I'd still vote for Trump over her.

Most Presidential decisions aren't dictated by who reacts fastest.

In general, I agree with you on the concept that debates value and showcase skills that don't necessarily translate to doing the job well.

That said, I'll offer one small counterpoint: I would think that *any* candidate forced to prepare for a 1-on-1 debate with Donald Trump would get their "ability to predict/plan/prepare for the unpredictable/unexpected" skills tested. In other words, preparing for and debating against Trump isn't going to help a candidate determine the best way to handle health care or create jobs, but I could see where some of the thought processes involved might help with crisis management.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by Ben E Lou

I was thinking that I'd love to see a Republican like, say, Paul Ryan and HRC have a serious policy-wonk debate in last night's format of having some space to reply back and forth. That was one thing that frustrated me last night: there was *ample* room for not just the 2-minute response, but for genuine back and forth on issues. But it was wasted with that pair up there. I suspect it'd bore most of the country to tears, though.

Agreed.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by Ben E Lou

In general, I agree with you on the concept that debates value and showcase skills that don't necessarily translate to doing the job well.

That said, I'll offer one small counterpoint: I would think that *any* candidate forced to prepare for a 1-on-1 debate with Donald Trump would get their "ability to predict/plan/prepare for the unpredictable/unexpected" skills tested. In other words, preparing for and debating against Trump isn't going to help a candidate determine the best way to handle health care or create jobs, but I could see where some of the thought processes involved might help with crisis management.

No president has ever made a crisis decision solo on the fly. That's what a cabinet is for. Given the two candidates, the more we know about who they would select for their cabinet is FAR more important to me than the actual candidates at this point. If they pick people they can run over, I'd be far more worried about that candidate.

[Galaril]

Originally Posted by Kodos

Maybe we need outsiders to become air traffic controllers. Surely, total ignorance is the way to go with a complicated job like that. Outsiders using common sense would obviously do a better job than people who have trained for the job for years. Right?

Yeah no kidding. I know as a CISO for a large Japanese global tech company I only hire completely inexperienced people to fill the roles of information security engineers ands analysts on my teams.��

[Galaril]

Originally Posted by CU Tiger

FWIW, I think Hillary clearly owned the debate and yet I'd still vote for Trump over her.

Most Presidential decisions aren't dictated by who reacts fastest.

Just the most important ones. YMMV.

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

No president has ever made a crisis decision solo on the fly. That's what a cabinet is for. Given the two candidates, the more we know about who they would select for their cabinet is FAR more important to me than the actual candidates at this point. If they pick people they can run over, I'd be far more worried about that candidate.

Of course.

But it's fairly safe to assume that *some* of the people involved in preparing for debating someone like Trump would also be involved in crisis decisions of a Presidency. (And if not the people, at least the process.)

[panerd]

Originally Posted by Kodos

Maybe we need outsiders to become air traffic controllers. Surely, total ignorance is the way to go with a complicated job like that. Outsiders using common sense would obviously do a better job than people who have trained for the job for years. Right?

I am pretty sure the implication of the word "outsider" in politics is someone who is not bought off by the system. Is Donald Trump an outsider? Absolutely not the guy has made millions/billions from our plutocracy. Also somebody that is a lifetime politician like Harry Reid who is somehow loaded even though he has worked in the public sector his whole life is not an outsider. While somebody like Bernie Sanders or Dennis Kucinich would fit the term.

Not an outsider...

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by Ben E Lou

In general, I agree with you on the concept that debates value and showcase skills that don't necessarily translate to doing the job well.

That said, I'll offer one small counterpoint: I would think that *any* candidate forced to prepare for a 1-on-1 debate with Donald Trump would get their "ability to predict/plan/prepare for the unpredictable/unexpected" skills tested. In other words, preparing for and debating against Trump isn't going to help a candidate determine the best way to handle health care or create jobs, but I could see where some of the thought processes involved might help with crisis management.

I think it helps HRC's confidence for those situations. But not all world leaders are as wonky as Trump.

If nothing else, I did like Trumps willingness to address the debacle that is the Democratic monopoly on race relations. Perhaps that gives the right some in-roads to affect change there in the future. The right is simply unwilling to let go of the notion (and I agree with not letting it go) that the inner city crisis is based on corporations leaving the USA because of bad trade deals and also unwilling to budge on the notion that criminals deserve the focus instead of the cops. The stats obviously back that up but we haven't been willing to have that discussion yet. Clinton will continue to push the "Its the cops, stupid" agenda for the next four years.

And I do agree that we give other nations a huge advantage in manufacturing and trade. We need to remember that China and Mexico pay their workers a pittance compared to ours so any additional benefits are just crushing us.

I read something a while ago that for Apple to build iPads in the US and make the same profit they would need to charge ~100% more. That needs to be addressed. And with opening the doors to allow hundreds of thousands of new workers into the country when our system is broke, it's leading to long-term problems for us. How are African-Americans and Hispanic-Americans going to increase their job opportunities when the Democrats are also opening the door wide open for millions more to enter? 10 million jobs starts to not sound so good when we are continuing to export jobs out and let more people in. I don't see where OUR minority population wins under the strategy.

I do like HRC on national security rather than Trump. I think she did a really good job there and while Trump talked about "bad experience" I believe she learns from those experiences and makes better decisions. She is very hawkish after all and I think she will kick the shit out of ISIS in the coming years.

So my take, HRC won. But in the three categories, I break it out like this.

Economy - Trump
Race relations - HRC (by default, although I liked Trumps arguments better, I know they just aren't ringing true)
National Security - HRC

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by Galaril

Just the most important ones. YMMV.

Ehhhh...other than maybe 9/11, I'm having a hard time thinking of a time when a crucial crisis decision has had to be made with a serious time crunch where 2 minutes vs. 30 minutes mattered.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Ben E Lou

I suspect it'd bore most of the country to tears, though.

No you don't.

You don't suspect that.

You know it with a great degree of certainty, same as any other realistic person does.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by Ben E Lou

Ehhhh...other than maybe 9/11, I'm having a hard time thinking of a time when a crucial crisis decision has had to be made with a serious time crunch where 2 minutes vs. 30 minutes mattered.

Benghazi.