Trump vs Hillary Debate Thread

Well now that someone said it on Twitter he knows to say it next time

Rubio 2020.

Time for that report

Some Actor 2020. I really don't care.

Or even better. Kevin Spacey as Frank Underwood or Peter Dinkledge as Tyrion. Not the actors personas, their character's.

I'm disappointed, I thought he might try to pull it together now that they're in the final stretch.

This was like a boxer taking a dive.

See, Cruz (or fill in Rubio, Kasich, Fiorina, Christie, etc.) would have made the conservative arguments (they're all basically the same - no continuation of the Obama regime), but they would've researched them and had lots of facts to back them up and done so in a relatively logical manner, they would've maintained a degree of decorum and professionality.

Hillary is an awful debater, yet compared to Trump's disjointed, loose canon approach, he made her look good.

So, uh, did they answer anything? 100% no sarcasm, I'm pretty sure this was just Hillary saying she was the sickest secretary, while Trump mumbles and rambles and then says make america great again.

I have to be honest - well actually no I don't, but I will be:

I was very unimpressed by both candidates.

I mean so much so that I may not vote.

The questions is - if you had to vote one or the other which would it be?

Proven incompetence is worse than possible incompetence, so Trump for me atm.

And that is not me promoting him, just my own personal math...

I had the following impression of the two candidates (which I never saw debate before):

Trump is a political outsider who has some of his ideas of how to run a country based on his own life as an entrepreneur. He speaks his mind, says a lot of things that don't make a lot of sense, but appears to be someone like my grandfather (who was also an entrepreneur who had his ideas of how to run a country and who also was a bit machist and racist, but, during the debate Trump did not say a single machist and racist thing, now he is more careful since he is aiming at the moderate voter). He is a bit ignorant on some economic aspects of running a country but I agree that the US needs to cut its debt levels and needs to lower taxes and improve on the efficiency of it's expenditures while I also agree that the US shouldn't act as the world's policeman anymore (the world is getting too big relatively to the US). I also agree that ISIS was caused by the power vacuum created in the middle east from the invasion of Iraq. I also agree that more strict policing on the ghettos should improve their security. I think he made several mistakes in debate, regarding the way he just allowed Hillary to make personal attacks on him (he should have said something on the lines of "these are cowardly personal attacks that show more about Hillary than about me").

Hillary is a professional politician. Nothing she says is truly from her personal views or based on her own though process but something that her campaign advisers have trained her to say and repeat, the vague stuff every other professional political says all the time. Her tactic during the debate was to just say some of these very old and tired vague political lines (very common among Brazilian politicians by the way: things like "we will invest on the middle class, improve education, improve security, improve the environment, etc", stuff everybody says in every political campaign) while attacking Trump on a personal level at every chance she got and in every way she could think of. I found her extremely unlikable and she has a very arrogant and condescending attitude regarding Trump.

I was sooo, so demorailized when Sanders didnt get the ticket. The thing with Trump, he's not who even he thinks he is, and this is the most dangerous position in the world for someone over their head. I dont want us or him finding out the hard way.

Technically incorrect, China is currently the world's largest country by any measure and hence the world's "most powerful" country, however they do not, yet, project that potential power. Although only a few people have really understood that and it's implications for foreign policy.

Trump actually understands that: most of NATO and other US's allies potential resources are not in the US but on the other countries that make up the alliance, hence, it's rational for the whole group to contribute for it's defense in a more equitable manner. The system where the US is the world's sole superpower and policeman does not fit well with the present world's geopolitical reality, where the US represents only 4.5% of it's population, 6% of it's steel production, 12% of its motor vehicle production, 13% of its oil production and about 16% of GDP, it's too big of a burden for the US to be the world's policeman with that relatively small and declining fraction of the world's resources. Specially considering that there exists another country representing a larger share of the world's resources.

In mid 1950's, the US corresponded to a much higher fraction of these aspects than it does today, at the time it was also the world's largest industrial and economic power by a mile. At that time it was natural for it to the world's policeman, but now? It's not natural and it's a manifestation of the past history and not present geopolitical reality. Trump understands that, Hillary, does not.

And yes, given the world's current geopolitical reality, Trump's essentially isolationist foreign policy is the correct and actually the US's traditional policy (before WW2 the US always let the European great powers to be the world's police, it was Hitler's plus Stalin's takeover of the continent that required US action into becoming a policeman).

Well, they didn't allow Gary Johnson in there.

It's the problem with the US's political system: they only have two parties and the two parties do not allow anybody else to get into politics, they monopolize the debates which means that they do not even recognize the possibility other parties might get into the debate.

i wouldn't support trump if i was US citizen ( no i am not US citizen ) . you already have experience with one clueless-about-the world president---george bush . he got you in the iraq mess . he did so because he did not know anything about the world outside the united states . to give you an example , bush used to call people from greece as grecians and did know they were called greeks . blundered without knowing about the middle east into iraq . i guess trump will be another bush---but more worse .

Sanders would be far worse than Trump. Sanders is basically an Argentinian peronista style politician that is promising people stuff for free, although it's not free. If he actually did in government everything he promised we would have the US installing a massive welfare state like Sweden in the 1980's which would seriously hamper economic activity, massively increase unemployment and hence lead to massive increases in crime, besides it will be a huge burden for the US government to do that while also being the world's policeman. That would lead to a unsustainable fiscal situation which could lead to hyperinflation and hence social and economic collapse.

Sanders was a major threat to the US. A very dangerous one: these kinds of politicians are the ones that made Argentina into a third world country.

No Guap, Bernies perfect world of how money is used would never have happened if he took the presidency. Plainly put the position isnt that powerful to where he could wave a wand and suddenly were "whatever". What we would have ended up with though is a real honest man that could be trusted. People attacked his politics, but coming at him as a person? Lotsa luck. That, is more what we needed than this. A mature man that would put his citizens before his legacy, or image, or "special interest". It was never about some "free ride" why I supported Sanders, or a promise of one. It was who was the best person for the job.

That's funny because some people believe the problem with Canadian politics is that there are more than two parties.

__________________
"A laugh can be a very powerful thing. Why, sometimes in life, it's the only weapon we have."

Suspect's Reviews

Currently watching this and it's hilarious and sad at the same time.

It's just boring old "grass is greener" stuff. People will always be unhappy with politics, so they'll blame whatever system they're in.

What they don't get is that the dilution and compromises they dislike about the two-party system here still happen in multi-party systems, they just happen more after elections rather than during the nominating process. You can be disappointed in having to vote for someone upfront, or you can be disappointed when they compromise on something after.

The things they really dislike are just an unavoidable part of living in a free society where not everyone agrees, I think.

Well, I watched it .... best of luck Americky - a bit like choosing between one of the Chuckle Brothers and Cruella De Vil imo

Just got done reading CNN's fact check for last night's debate. Not anything earth shattering for anyone who has been paying attention all along. The most astounding thing for me is how little of substance was said by either candidate. It really was like a college presidential debate or something along those lines. I don't agree with her much but I will give her credit for at least trying to stay on track. Trump just continues to perplex.

__________________
Letterboxd

Clinton won the debate quite easily according to CNN.

http://edition.cnn.com/2016/09/27/po...p-debate-poll/

It points out this though.

I agree with CNN on that. If their are undecideds left, I have to assume there are, she would probably have swayed them last night. She just speaks more competently there is no other way to say it. Keep in mind I am saying this as someone who thinks she has zero charisma and I disagree with her at least two-thirds of the time.