‘Humbling at Hofstra’

[imatfaal]

So is it gonna be worth staying up for?

 

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/sep/23/presidential-debate-preparation-trump-clinton

http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2016/09/first-presidential-debate-0

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/25/business/media/presidential-debate-audience.html?_r=0

Lester Holt, moderator of the first 2016 presidential debate, has selected the topics for that debate.

Subject to possible changes because of news developments, the topics for the September 26 debate are as follows, not necessarily to be brought up in this order:

America's Direction
Achieving Prosperity
Securing America

The debate will be held on Monday, September 26 at Hofstra University in Hempstead, NY. The format calls for six 15-minute time segments. Two 15-minute segments will focus on each of the topics listed above.

All debates start at 9:00 p.m. ET and run for 90 minutes without commercial interruption.

 

 

http://www.debates.org/index.php?mact=News,cntnt01,detail,0&cntnt01articleid=66&cntnt01origid=27&cntnt01detailtemplate=newspage&cntnt01returnid=80

 

Can we keep to the debate - rather than immediately rehash old topics .

 

=====

 

On purely stamina terms - a 70yo and a 68yo who has / has just got over pneumonia both standing under studio lights in an unimaginably stressful situation for 90 mins straight.

 

Will it be a slam dunk for either? I can imagine both candidates doing things that are outside the policy/presentation side of things that would be an election loser (faint under the lights, etc) - but these guys are both used to spotlight. Will there be a substantive point that scores big?

[Memammal]

I watched the debate and could not help wondering why is it being referred to as a presidential race...what race..? There is simply no competition between the two, they are in entirely different leagues, it is (or should be) glaringly obvious that one of them is a very competent and smart person who seems fit and ready to step into the Oval Office today...the other one seems dangerously inept, a completely inferior specimen.

 

And those blunders... America should have taken Iraq's oil (really..?), I am the perfect candidate as I am so darn smart that I don't pay taxes while insisting that all the other nations in the world (including those bohemian Japs...did I hear right?) should start paying up otherwise the mighty USA (mafia) will no longer protect them... Geesh, those are unforgiving gems to utter during a presidential debate, don't you think..?

[imatfaal]

I watched the debate and could not help wondering why is it being referred to as a presidential race...what race..? There is simply no competition between the two, they are in entirely different leagues, it is (or should be) glaringly obvious that one of them is a very competent and smart person who seems fit and ready to step into the Oval Office today...the other one seems dangerously inept, a completely inferior specimen.

 

And those blunders... America should have taken Iraq's oil (really..?), I am the perfect candidate as I am so darn smart that I don't pay taxes while insisting that all the other nations in the world (including those bohemian Japs...did I hear right?) should start paying up otherwise the mighty USA (mafia) will no longer protect them... Geesh, those are unforgiving gems to utter during a presidential debate, don't you think..?

 

I do think so. But yesterday - Nate Silver the best poll analyst around had the odds as 50:50!! It has shitfted slightly to 54:46 - but still unimaginably close and horrifyingly on a knife edge. I think a boring no big shocks month and a bit will give it to Clinton - but she has shown herself to be anything but teflon-clad and any big problem could hand things to Trump.

 

I hope they get the email thing dealt with at second debate - but I worry that it will be at the last debate in the swing State of Nevada with the Fox News moderator

[MigL]

I wonder how polls will react to last night's side-by-side comparison ?

 

I wonder if all the misinformed Americans supporting that jackass who may NOT pay ANY taxes ( he hasn't released his records, he must be hiding something ; sometimes you can draw conclusions from innuendo, Swansont ), will re-think their support after last night's showing.

H. Clinton seemed very prepared for the debate, just as she seems prepared for the Presidency.

D. Trump's comments and answers sometimes seemed out of context or disconnected from the issue being discussed.

He seems more ignorant of basic facts than his supporters are.

 

I can't imagine a President thinking and talking like D. Trump does.

[iNow]

She was poised. He was rattled. She was ready. He was petulant. He yelled louder, but was nonsensical.

 

None of it matters, though.

 

This isn't an election about ideas or policies or personalities. It's about which jersey you wear, which tribe you're in.

 

This is an identity election, not an ideological one. She picked him apart and destroyed him on that stage, and IMO very few people will change their minds because of it.

[MigL]

Well, it is about personalities, for sure.

But you're absolutely right, people who have always voted Republican will continue to do so, no matter who's heading them up, and people who have always voted Democrat will also.

Is that a problem with the American political system, or the American populace ?

[iNow]

yes

[Memammal]

I think a boring no big shocks month and a bit will give it to Clinton

Judging by the way she handled the first debate, she and her team have worked out the obvious tactic...let him drown in his own drivel.

 

This is an identity election, not an ideological one. She picked him apart and destroyed him on that stage, and IMO very few people will change their minds because of it.

Surely there must be a significant number of Republicans who have their reservations about (if not utter dislike for-) Trump; now more than ever, no? These are the people who would likely stay away come voting day.

Edited September 27, 2016 by Memammal

[Airbrush]

On the subject of Trump's original willingness to go into Iraq and thus create the vacuum that ISIS filled. He continues to argue that he was against the war in Iraq from the beginning. We already know how on Howard Stern when asked if he thought it was right to invade Iraq he answered "I guess so..." but nobody jumps on him for what he said immediately following that "...we should have done it right the first time." That confirms his extreme hawkish attitude about Iraq, meaning that he believed, at that time, that the Senior Bush did not go far enough, that we should not only have kicked Saddam out of Kuwait, but should have continued into Iraq and conquered THAT country.

 

Also on the subject of Obama "founding" ISIS by pulling out of Iraq, Iraq denied the US request that US troops not be prosecuted if they got into trouble, because it would open up sensitive info to the public. Didn't Obama have no choice but to leave Iraq because the Iraq government denied our request and didn't want the US there any longer?

 

In general Trump has a sorry propensity to exaggerate at every opportunity, way beyond what is normal.

Edited September 27, 2016 by Airbrush

[swansont]

sometimes you can draw conclusions from innuendo, Swansont

Yes, of course you can. It's just not evidence-based.

[Phi for All]

When Trump accused Cliinton of fighting ISIS for her entire adult life, I wanted her to point out that ISIS hasn't even been around as long as Melania. Would that have helped or harmed?

[Airbrush]

He was assuming that Hillary had the powers of a president for 30 years and didn't do anything with those powers?!!

[iNow]

Surely there must be a significant number of Republicans who have their reservations about (if not utter dislike for-) Trump; now more than ever, no? These are the people who would likely stay away come voting day.

Perhaps, but I suspect they were already at that decision point before the debate (and may even vote for Gary Johnson thus paradoxically increasing the likelihood Trump wins). Hard to say, though.

[Airbrush]

Not to stray from the subject here, which is appropriately titled "Humbling at Hofstra" (Imatfaal did a good prediction here! Haha), anyone think Gary Johnson may make an endorsement for his voters to vote for Hillary, since he really doesn't have a chance to win, and he would probably prefer 4 years of Hillary than Trump, right?

 

Did anyone catch his blunder when Hillary said to Trump "You are going to blame me for everything wrong with America?" or something like that. Trump answered "Why not?" That is a significant sin. That means he WOULD blame Hillary for "everything" which is an absurd thing to say. He claims to be religious, so he ADVOCATES breaking the 8th commandment from "God" which is "Thou shalt not bear false witness against your neighbor." His "Why not" means he is ok with lying about Hillary, "bearing false witness" for the greater good (the ends justify the means with Trump) so she does not become president.

 

From the results of the debate I have a good feeling folks. All Hillary needs to do is be wise, stay silent when Trump gets fired up, just step aside and allow Trump to self-destruct in front of the world audience.

Edited September 27, 2016 by Airbrush

[iNow]

?..anyone think Gary Johnson may make an endorsement for his voters to vote for Hillary, since he really doesn't have a chance to win...

No that's both unlikely and off-topic

[EvoN1020v]

I was just wholly glad that Hillary stood her ground and fired some some nice facts back to Trump's face. I was smiling slightly inside but I can tell you that Trump made himself a "believable" candidate for people that aligns with his views. Trump was acting like a bully with his cocked head, scorn look and frown, lifting his shoulders occasionally, periods of intrupption and talking over the talk host Lester Holt. I thought Lester did a fantastic job, much better than the last moderator. Holt made Trump clarify some of things that he said, and I wondered a couple of times if Trump was acting like he did because Hillary is a woman. He even admitted during the presidential debate that he didn't pay any federal taxes for the last 15 years! In close, Hillary portrayed a wise choice and I hope she prevails but at the same time, I have a bad feeling that Trump COULD and MAY win. It is literally scary.

Also you guys should check out CNN's Fact Checkers of the presidential debate and it says that Trump lied more than Clinton. Does a sane person want him as US president? Unfortunately we can't take common sense for granted so there will be people that will vote for him regardless - just because he has lots of money. So irrational.

[Tampitump]

This isn't an election about ideas or policies or personalities. It's about which jersey you wear, which tribe you're in.

100%

[Ten oz]

People view media al la carte. Trump supporters will have no problem finding the comfort of media sources that will tout his debate performance as terrific. They (Trump supporters) are already carrying on about all the online polls Trump won after the debate, questioning the moderator, questioning whether or not Trump should do other debates, and etc. Who won the debate is a rather meaningless concept in 2016 when we have a candidate who can say anything. Trump talked about NATO nations needing the "pay their fair share" and ignored that courts ruled Stop and Frisk by dismissing the judge as not liking police. Nothing Trump says matters. No error is too bad when the media feels obligated to note bad things about Clinton for equal for the sake of "fairness".

 

Even more bizarre to me is the way Trump has been allowed to flip Iraq and infastructure around into things we (USA) can blame Democrats for. Trump complained about or roads and bridges saying we should have used the money we spent going into Iraq to rebuild our country as if Reblicans, his party, weren't responsible for that. He literally made agruments on those issues Kerry made in 2004 and Obama made in 2008. Meanwhile it was a Republcan admin who pushed for the war and Republicans in congress that fought against funding for roads and bridges. We all remember "bridge to nowhere"? Republcans have mocked infanstructure spending as wasteful for years. Trump is blaming Clinton and Obama for things Republicans created and no one calls him out for it because they are distracted by all the other silly things Trump says.

 

The executive branch is only one thord of the federal gov't. The media, for their own reporting convenience, has markete this election as being a battle between to individual personalities. The President of the United States doesn't control the budget, Congress does. The President doesn't create law, Congress does. The President doesn't control the Chicago Police Department, elected city officials do, and on and on and on. Lost in the popularity contest is any basic reporting on how gov't actually functions.

[Willie71]

Trump is a buffoon, but he says things that a lot of people like. That is a problem. I haven't watched all of the debate yet, but what I saw so far doesn't make me think Trump was hurt any by his performance. He used a lot of coded language that the racist mysogynist demographic would be nodding their heads at. I have suspected there is more method to the madness than people believe. People just don't care about facts. Well, a lot of them anyway. Clinton came across as smug. She came across as elitist, and that will not resonate with a lot of people. She was right on most issues and has facts behind her, but I don't think people care. There are a lot of people who believe Obama is a Kenyan Marxist Muslim, after all. This is a frightening mess to watch unfold.

 

 

Just came across this interview. Sums up the risk of trump winning.

 

[Genecks]

I've been a Hilary Clinton supported until I saw the presidential debate, whereby each candidate may as well have been wearing party colors.

 

I've only got a few issues:

 

 

1. I agree with Donald Trump on his argument for keeping businesses in the U.S. and understand his view against what Hilary is doing. From my critical thinking stand point, if we argue that work gives meaning or a sense of fulfillment to a person's life, then I guess I will side with Trump. The downside of that, however, is that the pay will more than likely not be great. So, I assume that means that pay will decrease and cost of living will increase. With Hilary Clinton's view on this, she's going to cost the U.S. jobs.. How do I say that? Because if I was rich, I wouldn't live in the U.S.A.. There are too many laws, thus an elaborate schizoaffective network of free-will argumentists spouting crazy B.S. throughout positions of power. I would live in the U.S. if it made me money more money than elsewhere (but it'd have to be a lot more). I'd have companies in the U.S. if it made me more money than elsewhere. And that's just about getting rich. But if she wants to keep raising taxes on the rich to the point they want to leave the country because it's more profitable elsewhere, then that's not useful.

 

There has to be an economic trade-off, and it appears that both candidates were not explaining the intricate aspects of how markets work. If the trade-off for Hilary Clinton is that Americans increase their wealth while not having jobs, thus the cost of living decreases yet you don't have to work as hard in life for the cost of living as you previously did, then I understand how some people would be accepting of that. If the trade-off for Donald Trump is an increase in the work demand yet you don't have to supply as much work for the cost of living you previously had, I understand how some people would be accepting of that.

 

However, I like to believe people are best kept busy in life rather than moping around on the streets trying to figure out what they want to do next in life or trolling on the Internet, so I reason I'm going with Donald Trump. Otherwise, we'd have like an Animatrix situation eventually.

 

If I could tell both parties something, it would be to use the words "supply" and "demand" a lot more often.

 

2. Donald Trump should work in an apologetic way to rescind his comments about just blowing people the f*** up. If he's going to be commander in chief, then he needs to work on that. Hilary Clinton already brought that point to light, perhaps she considers that in the off-chance that he wins, her comments to him about those issues would prevent unnecessary military conflicts or fighting. I don't think Donald Trump has realized that his language may have been interpreted with utmost seriousness rather than an expression of a gut feeling but in reality he's more than seek diplomacy first: Thus, he's failed to understand a socio-cultural language barrier issue that may exist amongst foreigners.

 

3. Hilary Clinton pi***d me off whe she talked about minimum wage, which is why I created this thread. I've studied economics and equilibrium dynamics. From a hard stance, no, there is nothing that can be changed. From a soft stance, raising the minimum wage is going to simply create a lag, whereby it will take price setters time to re-adjust their prices a proportional amount that minimum wage was increased. So, it's really a moot point that creates annoyances for price setters and a quick luxury for those able to take advantage of the lag time. Donald Trump didn't appear to say anything about minimum wage.

 

The news media is ridiculously biased in the fact checking. When they say "Yes and No" as to whether or not something was true as to whether or not something Hilary Clinton or Donald Trump said, the media ought to provide a source. The station I watched, whichever it was, totally failed at that. It was an annoyance and one more reason I hate watching the news unless it's about politicians or members of the government going to jail or getting caught doing crime.

 

I don't care about Hilary Clinton's emails. I don't care about Trump's tax returns. I care about what would happen if given an army and military secrets as President along with having the ability to write things into law and pardon.

 

The interesting thing I got away from the presidential debate was how a candidate might use law to confirm or deny things. With digital hearsay law in consideration, a candidate could deny anything he or she says on the internet, thus removing themselves from civil liability if any liability or critical negative judgment, although circumstantial evidence might argue him or her to be a liar. Thus, Donald Trump in relation to the global warming issue could be denied, but if HE really did post on twitter, then he was the actor that "said" such comment, although tweeted rather than said would be a definitional argument of proper verb. Also, I came to realize that all of the reporters could lie, use the shield law, and claim the debate as hearsay. I guess that's best to say that if you want to know what a candidate thinks, look at the original sources that could be used in the court of law as evidence. Arguably, that's anything that happened in court. From that, we can grasp that both parties are sneaky and conniving. Thus, after it all, I came to realize the best thing that any American voter can do is write him/herself on the ballot. The idea of giving responsibility to someone else is instead directed onto oneself, and I think the government is scared of that and yet hopeful of it.

Edited September 28, 2016 by Genecks

[Arete]

One thing that's been bothering me is that there's been limited discussion of this quote by Trump:

 

 

Just to go down the list we defend Japan. We defend Germany. We defend South Korea. We defend Saudi Arabia. We defend countries. They do not pay us what they should be paying us because we are providing tremendous service and we’re losing a fortune. That’s why we’re losing, we’re losing, we lose on everything… It’s very possible that if they don’t pay a fair share because this isn’t 40 years ago where we could do what we’re doing. We can’t defend Japan.

 

Under the Japan-US security treaty, the US agrees to defend Japan against its foreign adversaries, and Japan agrees to help support a US force on Japanese soil, which they spend about US $2 billion a year doing. Similarly, South Korea contributes US $808 million a year to the upkeep of US troops and is paying over US $9 billion to build new US bases in South Korea. It would be considerably more costly for the US to house those troops in the US than in Japan and South Korea.

 

So Trump's comment is comprehensively false - Japan contributes considerably to US military operations in Asia, and in return the US maintains a presence of about 80,000 troops right on China and North Korea's doorstep - a massive military advantage if there was ever a conflict, and a huge economic advantage in being able to control and protect trade routes in the Eastern Pacific.

 

So the open questions become - is Trump (supposedly a savvy businessman with dealings in Asia) simply that clueless about US foreign policy and diplomacy, or is he just assuming the voters are and he can dupe them? How would it go down if he brought something like that up in a discussion with a foreign president, and how would it damage US trade and security interests?

Edited September 29, 2016 by Arete

[Ophiolite]

I watched only a portion of the first debate. Clinton, as one would have expected, appeared professional, well prepared and informed. I struggled to figure out what was familiar about Trump. Then I realised his style was a match for the fools who post "new theories" here and are immune to facts, full of bluster and react violently to any hint of criticism. Frightening.

[CharonY]

Considering that due to time limitations debates are generally more about style than substances, it was extremely one-sided with one candidate appearing to have at best a fifth-level mastery of the English language. In the end, it probably won't matter much for those that are in either camp.

With regard to the tax plans being mentioned, it was a bit vague as I could not clearly see whether they were talking e.g. about corporate tax or income tax for example. That being said, is there actually any evidence that taxes are a main factor for re-locating business? I would think it would be very dependent on the business model and their current condition. Recently, a number of especially tech-oriented business CEOs have declared that they would be alright with higher taxes as it would build the very infrastructure they needed for their business.

One thing that's been bothering me is that there's been limited discussion of this quote by Trump:

 

 

 

Under the Japan-US security treaty, the US agrees to defend Japan against its foreign adversaries, and Japan agrees to help support a US force on Japanese soil, which they spend about US $2 billion a year doing. Similarly, South Korea contributes US $808 million a year to the upkeep of US troops and is paying over US $9 billion to build new US bases in South Korea. It would be considerably more costly for the US to house those troops in the US than in Japan and South Korea.

 

So Trump's comment is comprehensively false - Japan contributes considerably to US military operations in Asia, and in return the US maintains a presence of about 80,000 troops right on China and North Korea's doorstep - a massive military advantage if there was ever a conflict, and a huge economic advantage in being able to control and protect trade routes in the Eastern Pacific.

 

So the open questions become - is Trump (supposedly a savvy businessman with dealings in Asia) simply that clueless about US foreign policy and diplomacy, or is he just assuming the voters are and he can dupe them? How would it go down if he brought something like that up in a discussion with a foreign president, and how would it damage US trade and security interests?

 

Effectively he seems to think that he can run the US military as a sort of mercenary business enterprise, where he can take in a net profit from allies, whilst externalizing associated cost (aka, "make them pay for the wall").

 

Second edit:

The election has long stopped being about two (usually slightly) different views on leadership. It has all become about being for or against a Trump presidency. And I am pretty sure that everything being about him his is main vision.

Edited September 29, 2016 by CharonY

[Arete]

Effectively he seems to think that he can run the US military as a sort of mercenary business enterprise, where he can take in a net profit from allies, whilst externalizing associated cost (aka, "make them pay for the wall").

 

Yeah, I guess I'm thinking about a scenario where Trump brings something like this up at a G8 summit - tries to extort negotiate more "protection money" from Japan for the US presence in Okinawa. Japan takes offense, scraps the security treaty, tells the US to pack up and get out. Now the US foots the bill for relocating 50,000 troops and associated hardware, loses the $2 billion contribution per year from Japan to upkeep, and has some of the worst EPA superfund sites to clean up before giving the land back to Japan, and loses possibly its most important strategic military position in the Asia Pacific region.

 

Does Trump just not know that a) Japan pays a bunch for the US presence there, or b) The US doesn't have troops in Japan to protect its little buddy out of the goodness of its heart? If so, it's terrifying that I as an Australian citizen and a biologist know more than a presidential nominee about US foreign policy, and he brought it up as a talking point in the debate?

 

Or alternatively, he does know all this and insinuated that Japan doesn't contribute to US military efforts because he didn't think the voters would know he was lying, and thought it would score points? Or maybe he just thinks, as he constantly says, he could get a "better deal" than Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, Bush I, Clinton, Bush 2 or Obama?

 

In my mind it's simply a case among the multitude of others that demonstrates the potential for a Trump presidency to be a disaster.

 

Edit: Can has no spull gud.

Edited September 29, 2016 by Arete

[iNow]

So the open questions become - is Trump (supposedly a savvy businessman with dealings in Asia) simply that clueless about US foreign policy and diplomacy, or is he just assuming the voters are and he can dupe them?

I think it's a bit of both, really, but mostly he's just clueless on policy (and has bad advisers who give him crap advice).