Final debate
- Thread starter Jubee
- Start date
No knock out punch by either of them.
I think Trump stepped on a few landmines. I think his refusing to say he would respect the result of the election is going to get a lot of airplay.
Otherwise they both beat each other up over the expected topics. I didn't see any knockout and I think Trump needed a big win to save his campaign.
We will have to see how the polls move over the next couple days.
I think Trump stepped on a few landmines. I think his refusing to say he would respect the result of the election is going to get a lot of airplay.
Otherwise they both beat each other up over the expected topics. I didn't see any knockout and I think Trump needed a big win to save his campaign.
We will have to see how the polls move over the next couple days.
While everyone was watching the debate on MSM, Trump launched Trump TV and went live on Facebook. The feed was holding steady and only trailing ABC News Debate field on the platform. Genius!
O
OnTheWayOut
From CNN, No surprise there...
Project Veritas Action
Rigging the Election - Video I: Clinton Campaign and DNC Incite Violence at Trump Rallies
https://youtu.be/5IuJGHuIkzY
Almost 5 million views
I agree on the Wikileaks, she made herself look very uncomfortable, she looked like a kid caught with their hand in the jar.
Now Donald, clearly needed a body language expert to tell him how to be, that opening and close of his mouth showing his lower teeth, then pouting?
Not looking into the camera for the closing speech - SPEAK TO YOUR POTENTIAL VOTERS. Although, I did like how he pin pointed the blacks and told them, they'll (Dems) will ask for your vote and see you in for years. lol
Trump almost made the mistake of throwing his brand name, talking about how he was at his fantastic hotel down the street "called the tr..." and he stopped himself. Good idea.
While he's really not ready for this sort of position, unfortunately, we're going to get a very boring, cunt with a huge ego for the President south of the border.
A paid puppet to do whatever powerful lobbyists want. Fuck my lfe. What a disaster.
Jill Stine would have been so much better, but the guys running the show will never allow it.
When Ross Perot was looked upon as a joke by the Conservatives, now THAT was a guy who would have done something, but, the media loved that Clinton boh'y!!
17 Intelligence Agencies have found the Russians responsible for the WikiLeaks scenario. That did catch out even the moderator as he was unaware of it. Shows that Ms. Clinton did prepare for this issue.
It's not helpful to the debate to manipulate information like that. The opinion that you refer to is not that the Intelligence Agencies found Russia to be responsible, their opinion was that they believe they have a high degree of confidence that it was the Russians. Statements like that tell you that their opinion is less than certain. Spokespeople from the administration have been very careful to stop short of definitively accusing Russia of any of the published hacks when answering questions from the press. I suspect the reason is that the hacks are sufficiently sophisticated that the trail left behind does not definitively lead to an identifiable perpetrator. Perhaps, the trail indicates that the hack trail leads through Russian servers. Of course, that's exactly what hackers would do if they wanted to cast suspicion on the Russians and conceal their own identity. US intelligence officials are savvy enough to know this. People like Clinton, and you, cite the opinion as if the hackers have been identified. You will find absolutely no confirmation from the WH for this.
The debate would be a lot more civil if people stopped trying to overstate the facts.
Republican strategists not impressed with Trump's debate performance
http://redirect.viglink.com/?format...story/2016/10/republicans-trump-debate-230071
http://redirect.viglink.com/?format...story/2016/10/republicans-trump-debate-230071
That's funny to hear from a Trump supporter.
Do you really believe that Trump never 'overstates the facts'?
I'm prepared to agree that Trump is not as talented a debater as Clinton. She should be better, as trained lawyer and as someone who has had to appear for so many hours before so many inquiries and hearings into her activities.
However, that analysis misses the point. The purpose of the debate is not a contest of debating talent, it's an outreach to voters. I don't believe that what either candidate did will shake the core support of the other camp. They probably both strengthened their core support. However, I tend to believe that undecided voters are not "low information" or "low engagement" voters, as the media suggest and/or appear to believe, but rather they are people who genuinely see the flaws of both candidates and are honestly trying to evaluate which is the better of two flawed choices. I believe that "debate talent" will rank very low on the criteria by which they will finally make up their minds. I think undecided voters are looking through the obfuscation to the meat of the issues.
Finally, as I've said a number of times now, this race is tight enough that turnout will matter, maybe more than any election I've seen in my lifetime. I think Clinton still has a bigger turnout challenge than Trump, based on the voting constituencies she is relying upon and based upon dissatisfaction among the Bernie crowd. This is still too tight too call, no matter how many times MSNBC or CNN want to trot out selective polling numbers to try to call this thing as over.
However, that analysis misses the point. The purpose of the debate is not a contest of debating talent, it's an outreach to voters. I don't believe that what either candidate did will shake the core support of the other camp. They probably both strengthened their core support. However, I tend to believe that undecided voters are not "low information" or "low engagement" voters, as the media suggest and/or appear to believe, but rather they are people who genuinely see the flaws of both candidates and are honestly trying to evaluate which is the better of two flawed choices. I believe that "debate talent" will rank very low on the criteria by which they will finally make up their minds. I think undecided voters are looking through the obfuscation to the meat of the issues.
Finally, as I've said a number of times now, this race is tight enough that turnout will matter, maybe more than any election I've seen in my lifetime. I think Clinton still has a bigger turnout challenge than Trump, based on the voting constituencies she is relying upon and based upon dissatisfaction among the Bernie crowd. This is still too tight too call, no matter how many times MSNBC or CNN want to trot out selective polling numbers to try to call this thing as over.
I'm not engaged in a discussion with Trump. I am engaged in a discussion with people on this board. Do you think the best way to address what you consider to be overstatements by Trump is to overstate facts yourself?
And Frank, you're just as bad as any politicians, always pivoting away from difficult points. Are you prepared to confirm that I have accurately described the Intelligence opinion on the hacks. I'd hope so, because that's how it was stated.
Are you prepared to accept that as Train Like said in the poll thread:
To try to quibble about one point with Clinton, which is debatable on its own, without looking at the whole picture is ridiculous.
If you're going to discuss the accuracy of statements you're going to have to start by defending 72% of Trump's statements.
