Trump - Suprise for the Debate

[madhatter]

XJ's analysis was purely emotion based, predetermined. biased and not in line with what a seeming majority of others think...

It's almost like you didn't watch the debates. Trump looked like a dolt. Here's an example from the transcript...the layman voter has to be scratching their heads ... as to why this was even a question at all???

ESTER HOLT
I will let you respond, that’s important. But I just want to get the answer here. The birth certificate was produced in 2011, you continued to tell the story and question the president's legitimacy in 2012, 13, 14, 15, as recently as January. So the question is, what changed your mind?

DONALD TRUMP
Well, nobody was pressing it. Nobody was caring much about it. I figured you’d ask the question tonight, of course. But nobody was caring much about it. But I was the one that got him to produce the birth certificate. And I think I did a good job. Secretary Clinton also fought it. I mean, you know, now everybody in the mainstream’s gonna say, that’s not true. Look, it’s true.

Sidney Blumenthal sent a reporter. You just have to take a look at CNN last week, the interview with your former campaign manager. And she was involved. But just like she can't bring back jobs, she can't produce.

LESTER HOLT
I'm sorry. I’m just going to follow up. I will let you respond because there is a lot there. We're talking about racial healing in the segment. What do you say to Americans --

DONALD TRUMP
I say nothing because I was able to get him to produce it. He should have produced a long time before. I say nothing, but let me just tell you. When you talk about healing, I think that I developed very, very good relationships over the last little while with the African-American community. I think you can see that. And I feel that they really wanted me to come to that conclusion. And I think I did a great job and a great service, not only for the country but even for the president in getting him to produce his birth certificate.

LESTER HOLT
Secretary Clinton.

HILLARY CLINTON
Well, just listen to what you heard.

it's exactly like you watched it with your mind made up already...anyone basing their vote on the "birther" thing or a response to it is an idiot...it has ZERO bearing on anything....

again you seem to have very little ability to grasp the pulse of the public... You react to everything through the prism of your own bias w/o any thought whatsoever as to how anyone else views it except to say that if they didn't see it your way they clearly didn't see it at all...

if you are looking to discredit either candidate there is plenty to point to...if you want to look at the debate as to what effects it has/will have on the election you need to open your eyes at least a little...

you say trump looked like a dolt, that's your opinion, one you brought with you ( many may also share that opinion with you)...I agree he rambled and missed a number of opportunities to hammer clinton...meanwhile clinton used her own method of avoidance, namely talking points, imaginary facts and tired worn out "spin" that only fools a fool......perhaps you just didn't notice?

I also agree that trump didn't bring his A game and clinton surely did...even still she was unable to make much hay out of it...Trump will improve, clinton will remain clinton...


your analysis = trump lost big and will never be president, as if you hadn't already pre-determined that...that's not an analysis, that's simply wishful thinking based on your inherent bias...

taking an objective look says the race was/will be largely unaffected by the debate...

only one of us is begin even remotely objective here...here's a not so subtle hint: it ain't you...

you can say you thought clinton won, trump lost etc but that's not even remotely making any attempt at gauging the voting public's reaction overall...

[madhatter]

Many of Trump's unflattering moments came from questions "race baiter Holt" asked. He was setting him up to fail. Most of this line of questioning has nothing to do with ruling the country. Where were Cankle's questions about the foundation bribery, email and cover up and the mess Obama and Cankle have left us in the Middle East On character issues Holt hit Trump hard. What about Cankle destroying Bill's rape victims and lying to the public for 30 years. Holt did everything he could to make Trump look bad and Cankle good. What about a plan to reduce the debt

exactly...

BM: yes I saw the pics on FB...

everyone else:

107 will be closed for a while due to a tractor trailer rollover....

[madhatter]

apparently many took issue w holt's performance:

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-09-2 ... rd-debater" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

guess there is some truth there:

At last night’s debate, Donald Trump faced off not just against Hillary Clinton, but against moderator Lester Holt.

The game of two-on-one saw Holt ask no questions about:

Hillary’s emails
Benghazi
The Clinton Foundation

While ignoring these issues, Holt grilled Trump on stop-and-frisk, the birther story, his comments about women, his many bankruptcies, why he hasn’t released his tax returns — and a host of other issues the media sees as unfriendly to the Republican candidate.

Holt also repeatedly attempted to “fact check” on some of Trump’s positions, such as his claim to have opposed the Iraq War from the beginning. Holt interrupted Trump several times to interject, but rarely succeeded (and may have come across as weak and impotent).

hard to argue w any of that...

[brownman]

The 6 debate format topics were pre-determined.
Holt had little choice to keep things on subject.

First debates are like pre-season games.
Madame Secretary knows how to navigate the terrain.
All mophead had to do was not lose his cool.
Filling 2 minute responses with hackneyed repetition gets old.
Drumph only resorted to '"Excuse Me" around a dozen times
Only adjusted the microphone (his nervous twitch) half a dozen.

His veiled threat was curious .. sordid Clinton past ..
Bring it On, Don.
' .. Don't make me angry with the games that you play.
Either light up or leave me alone.'

Is there a Lincoln-Douglas format debate scheduled?
That would likely elicit the meltdown moment.
It's just offstage there ..

[madhatter]

here's some pretty good analysis that I can largely concur with...

http://thefederalist.com/2016/09/27/6-q ... al-debate/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[XtremeJibber2001]

it's exactly like you watched it with your mind made up already...anyone basing their vote on the "birther" thing or a response to it is an idiot...it has ZERO bearing on anything....

It goes to his character.

again you seem to have very little ability to grasp the pulse of the public... You react to everything through the prism of your own bias w/o any thought whatsoever as to how anyone else views it except to say that if they didn't see it your way they clearly didn't see it at all...

I voted for GWB both times, come from a family of strong GOP faithful, and I so badly want to cast a vote for the GOP but the nominee is a turd. I can't possibly be on my own here. You can pretend I am, but I know I'm not. Look at the other GOP faithful, look at GHWB. I'm not alone.

if you are looking to discredit either candidate there is plenty to point to...if you want to look at the debate as to what effects it has/will have on the election you need to open your eyes at least a little...

If I'm an uninformed voter, I imagine many left the debates thinking Trump is the same dude they saw on the Apprentice. Maybe that's good?

you say trump looked like a dolt, that's your opinion, one you brought with you ( many may also share that opinion with you)...I agree he rambled and missed a number of opportunities to hammer clinton...meanwhile clinton used her own method of avoidance, namely talking points, imaginary facts and tired worn out "spin" that only fools a fool......perhaps you just didn't notice?

I noticed. Clinton allowed Trump to sh*t on himself. She could sit their and offer scripted non-responses because she knew Trump wouldn't take her to task ... and he rarely did ... and at times agreed with her.

I also agree that trump didn't bring his A game and clinton surely did...even still she was unable to make much hay out of it...Trump will improve, clinton will remain clinton...

I don't have much faith. Clinton has spent her life and career in politics and debate. I don't see how Trump will gain his executive presence in the next few weeks. Happy to eat crow if I must.

your analysis = trump lost big and will never be president, as if you hadn't already pre-determined that...that's not an analysis, that's simply wishful thinking based on your inherent bias...

taking an objective look says the race was/will be largely unaffected by the debate...

only one of us is begin even remotely objective here...here's a not so subtle hint: it ain't you...

you can say you thought clinton won, trump lost etc but that's not even remotely making any attempt at gauging the voting public's reaction overall...

I've said it all along. No way Trump is elected president. It will have been an interesting one, but the GOP is their own worst enemy. Maybe in 2020 they will put someone on the ballet that's worth the time.

[madhatter]

it's exactly like you watched it with your mind made up already...anyone basing their vote on the "birther" thing or a response to it is an idiot...it has ZERO bearing on anything....

It goes to his character.the one side you've predetermined and focused on entirely...

again you seem to have very little ability to grasp the pulse of the public... You react to everything through the prism of your own bias w/o any thought whatsoever as to how anyone else views it except to say that if they didn't see it your way they clearly didn't see it at all...

I voted for GWB both times, come from a family of strong GOP faithful, and I so badly want to cast a vote for the GOP but the nominee is a turd. I can't possibly be on my own here. You can pretend I am, but I know I'm not. Look at the other GOP faithful, look at GHWB. I'm not alone.who said GOP, BUSH etc? you determined early on that trump was a no go and simply look to bolster your opinion, regardless of your " backstory"... we get how YOU feel but you are one person...how does the public at large feel about the debate?

if you are looking to discredit either candidate there is plenty to point to...if you want to look at the debate as to what effects it has/will have on the election you need to open your eyes at least a little...

If I'm an uninformed voter, I imagine many left the debates thinking Trump is the same dude they saw on the Apprentice. Maybe that's good?that's your analysis of how the debate may have affected the race? again its more bolstering of your preconceived notion...I didn;t say or imply uninformed, I am talking about bias and perspective in looking at the race and the effects of the debate on it...that means trying to gauge how "others" will likely see things, not regurgitating how you see them...

you say trump looked like a dolt, that's your opinion, one you brought with you ( many may also share that opinion with you)...I agree he rambled and missed a number of opportunities to hammer clinton...meanwhile clinton used her own method of avoidance, namely talking points, imaginary facts and tired worn out "spin" that only fools a fool......perhaps you just didn't notice?

I noticed. perhaps but that fact that you ONLY called out trump on it ( I didn't see you quote clinton)again is bias seeking to bolster your opinion, not analysis into the debate and its effects on the race...two entirely different animals...Clinton allowed Trump to sh*t on himself. She could sit their and offer scripted non-responses because she knew Trump wouldn't take her to task ... and he rarely did ... and at times agreed with her.yep pretty much what I said from the get go w/o the bias....he'll need to do better...but do you imagine anyone who wasn't already sold on the clinton script bought in last nite?

I also agree that trump didn't bring his A game and clinton surely did...even still she was unable to make much hay out of it...Trump will improve, clinton will remain clinton...

I don't have much faith. Clinton has spent her life and career in politics and debate. I don't see how Trump will gain his executive presence in the next few weeks. Happy to eat crow if I must.have you not been watching? trump is a quick study and has made tremendous advances in being a "politician" ( for better or worse, depending on how you view politicians) I fully expect him to improve...If clinton's A game vs trumps less than stellar performance doesn't bring her gains its all for not...he'll need to be coached in this area as in business dealings you deal one on one not each vs a third party ( the electorate)...he'll need to adopt some political moves and what not, but for many his appeal is that he's not Clinton ( who) has spent her life and career in politics and debate. summed up the left takes trump literally, but never seriously while the right takes him seriously but never literally...one clearly has a far better grasp of reality vs wishful thinking...

your analysis = trump lost big and will never be president, as if you hadn't already pre-determined that...that's not an analysis, that's simply wishful thinking based on your inherent bias...

taking an objective look says the race was/will be largely unaffected by the debate...

only one of us is begin even remotely objective here...here's a not so subtle hint: it ain't you...

you can say you thought clinton won, trump lost etc but that's not even remotely making any attempt at gauging the voting public's reaction overall...

I've said it all along. yes you have and you'll ignore anything that interferes w that predetermination... No way Trump is elected president. you might want to take a look at the RCP avg, battle ground states avg and maybe 538 too...it's a very close race and far from "No way Trump is elected president."It will have been an interesting one, but the GOP is their own worst enemy. this is pretty much all I;ve heard from you since you've been on Kzone, kinda hard to look at you as a conservative, though you clearly are when it comes right down to it....funny thing, so is my mom but she's voted D in every election her entire life despite being adamantly against nearly every liberal tenet and an abject hater of millennials and other younger generations... Maybe in 2020 they will put someone on the ballet that's worth the time.

good grief there wont be a republican party if clinton wins unless she were to absolutely meltdown in her first two yrs in office...a D house, senate and presidency at this point would allow them to tip the electorate in a direction where conservative principles would never take root... there will be an opposition party again but it will likely be to the left of clinton with any conservative party an outlying third party...like much of europe...

[Mister Moose]

it's exactly like you watched it with your mind made up already...anyone basing their vote on the "birther" thing or a response to it is an idiot...it has ZERO bearing on anything....

It goes to his character.

I agree Trump has shown various character flaws throughout the last year, but I don't get your appraisal of this one. The "birther thing" was a legitimate question to ask of a candidate with no school transcripts, born to one non citizen parent, whose mother was frequently out of the country, and who as a youth spent much of his time out of the country. It was so easily dispatched with a copy of the birth certificate. Why did Obama hesitate a mere second in producing it? That only fueled the speculation. Furthermore, there is nothing, zero, zilch that is racist about certifying the eligibility of the candidate. The birth certificate provides 2 constitutionally required qualifications; birth in the US, and over 35 years of age. The press has painted it as a racist issue, and so far I don't see it. It was the first time the question was raised of a candidate, but prior candidates were born to families with far more stable households with parents and grandparents that lived here full time. The question never came up. For instance with JFK, the youngest ever candidate, we "knew" he was over 35 based on his well documented service experience in WWII. If JFK had been a come from obscurity candidate we might have asked for proof of age.

The birther issue is a tabloid partisan issue. It has no more substance for Trump than it does for Obama.

I thought Trump did poorly at times, and landed a few punches well. His disjointed string of partial phrases was painful to listen to during the times that it was clear he was winging it. He did take control of the conversation a few times, both from Clinton and Holt. He did avoid any previous exhibition of childish expressions or schoolyard taunts. But overall he didn't move my needle upward. There wasn't enough to move my needle downward either, as his meandering style is nothing new. Trump for me was a tie.

Clinton impressed me with her vigor, perhaps because the collapsing video is still replaying in my mind. She was energetic, smiling, avoided yelling, and easily reached in her pocket many times for a well worded response. That is not to say I agreed with much of what she said, but she comes across as viable for that 90 minutes. Check her partisan website for fact checking? Are we as a nation that gullible? Accept her answer on the Pacific trade agreement or the Iran settlement? Think she has any clue whatsoever on what is good for the economy? (She already said she'd let her husband drive that issue) I don't think so. But she did move my needle for her up, admittedly from a fairly low level.

So I don't care who "won", and I expect much banter and disagreement on the media's portrayal and pundits opinions. This is just the first of 3, and neither candidate lost the election last night. There's more to come.

[Dr. NO]

McCain was questioned regarding his birth place and eligibility because, being the son of a Navel officer, he was born in the Panama Canal zone, at that time it was a US possession.

[madhatter]

McCain was questioned regarding his birth place and eligibility because, being the son of a Navel officer, he was born in the Panama Canal zone, at that time it was a US possession.

asking obama about this is perfectly acceptable and clearly not race based...asking trump about this was ridiculous in the terms of a national debate on ""America's Direction," "Achieving Prosperity," and "Securing America,"" it had nothing to do with any of it and trump already addressed it in the last week or so...

I wasn't dismissing it a as a legit issue in regards to obama but in regards to last nites debate...trump should have brushed it off more quickly and moved on...again he needs to do better by being more of a slimeball politician, just not too much....


personally I thought trump fell well short while clinton was what one would have expected had there not been the whole health fiasco lead up...in that regard she exceeded my expectations...


If there was a winner, and I'm not convinced there was, then it would have to be trump just by virtue of not eliminating himself...otherwise...


moar polling....

[freeski]

Did the mainstream media call Trump a racist for questioning if Cruz was eligible to run? The MSM has some issues they should raise with Trump, but a lot of the complaints are garbage.

[XtremeJibber2001]

it's exactly like you watched it with your mind made up already...anyone basing their vote on the "birther" thing or a response to it is an idiot...it has ZERO bearing on anything....

It goes to his character.

I agree Trump has shown various character flaws throughout the last year, but I don't get your appraisal of this one. The "birther thing" was a legitimate question to ask of a candidate with no school transcripts, born to one non citizen parent, whose mother was frequently out of the country, and who as a youth spent much of his time out of the country. It was so easily dispatched with a copy of the birth certificate. Why did Obama hesitate a mere second in producing it? That only fueled the speculation. Furthermore, there is nothing, zero, zilch that is racist about certifying the eligibility of the candidate. The birth certificate provides 2 constitutionally required qualifications; birth in the US, and over 35 years of age. The press has painted it as a racist issue, and so far I don't see it. It was the first time the question was raised of a candidate, but prior candidates were born to families with far more stable households with parents and grandparents that lived here full time. The question never came up. For instance with JFK, the youngest ever candidate, we "knew" he was over 35 based on his well documented service experience in WWII. If JFK had been a come from obscurity candidate we might have asked for proof of age.

I agree with what you wrote, but that's not how Trump approached the issue. He approached it as if he single handedly solved the issue, he did not.

[Nikoli]

Trump looked a bit run down last night. I wonder if he has the stamina to continue...

[shortski]

Trump looked a bit run down last night. I wonder if he has the stamina to continue...

Let's just hope HiLIARy doesn't catch what "The Donald" has.

[Bubba]

Trump looked a bit run down last night. I wonder if he has the stamina to continue...

Let's just hope HiLIARy doesn't catch what "The Donald" has.

You mean a coke habit?