Trump to win?

[vt]

Re: Trump to win?

Just being on the stage legitimizes Trump as Presidential. He missed great opportunities to hit Clinton on issues in the 2nd half.

The moderator was a bit biased as you'd expect from the press.

Neither of them are likable so that makes it hard to choose.

Independents will not decide primarily on issues; they will decide on how they feel about who can bring the country out of the morass we are in.

Trump has a major advantage by being an outsider, and people may simply be tired of Clinton.

The best quote I heard was from a friend named Jeff: "I'm with neitHER"

[LazyBoy]

Re: Trump to win?

Hillary looked healthy and sane. Donald was sniffling and eye rolling and looked like he had stamina problems.

Donald got a little wacky at the end, mostly while taking Hillary's bait.

I'd say she won on points, but not a knockout or anything.

I suspect it's still a very close race, despite what any polls say. Ripe for some scandal to influence. (Why does wikileaks tease so far in advance? Just tell us what you have.)

[shiny!]

Re: Trump to win?

my $0.02

trump won the first half hour, which began with a question about the economy. hillary gave a boilerplate speech, obviously prepared and rehearsed in advance, which was so dull and full of platitudes that it left me unable to listen to what she was saying. trump just talked about trade, made unrealistic promises about bringing jobs back that have already left, and essentially endorsed a significant tariff wall. at least he seemed on topic and made sense- you could listen and understand his point, whether or not you thought it realistic or agreed or disagreed.

for trump, it was downhill from there. by the end he was repeating the same [brief] points or phrases at least 3 times in every answer. he digressed in kind of bizarre and off-putting ways. best example- asked about cybersecurity he told us how good his 10 year old son was with computers [congrats donald, and nice to know you like to brag about your son, but not quite relevant unless you are suggested your son is a hacker prodigy], and then said the dnc hacking could have been done by the russians, the chinese, or some guy sitting on a bed who [which?] weighs 400 pounds. [wtf?] i think it was the guy who was supposed to weigh 400 pounds, not the bed, but i don't recall the pronoun.

he also said he had prepared some horrible personal attack on hillary but ultimately felt like he couldn't bring himself to do it. not sure what that was supposed to convey- perhaps it was a testimonial to his own self-restraint.

hillary appeared to get more relaxed and happy as the debate wore on. donald got more disorganized.

his lack of preparation and lack of knowledge showed. whether that means much for the election is, however, an open question.

This pretty much sums up my impressions as well.

[jk]

Re: Trump to win?

Oh, c'mon! Doesn't anyone have an opinion on the debate? I fell asleep halfway through and my Tivo didn't record the last half hour. Nobody's nose grew two feet long, nobody burst into flames. Disappointing, really...

my $0.02

trump won the first half hour, which began with a question about the economy. hillary gave a boilerplate speech, obviously prepared and rehearsed in advance, which was so dull and full of platitudes that it left me unable to listen to what she was saying. trump just talked about trade, made unrealistic promises about bringing jobs back that have already left, and essentially endorsed a significant tariff wall. at least he seemed on topic and made sense- you could listen and understand his point, whether or not you thought it realistic or agreed or disagreed.

for trump, it was downhill from there. by the end he was repeating the same [brief] points or phrases at least 3 times in every answer. he digressed in kind of bizarre and off-putting ways. best example- asked about cybersecurity he told us how good his 10 year old son was with computers [congrats donald, and nice to know you like to brag about your son, but not quite relevant unless you are suggested your son is a hacker prodigy], and then said the dnc hacking could have been done by the russians, the chinese, or some guy sitting on a bed who [which?] weighs 400 pounds. [wtf?] i think it was the guy who was supposed to weigh 400 pounds, not the bed, but i don't recall the pronoun.

he also said he had prepared some horrible personal attack on hillary but ultimately felt like he couldn't bring himself to do it. not sure what that was supposed to convey- perhaps it was a testimonial to his own self-restraint.

hillary appeared to get more relaxed and happy as the debate wore on. donald got more disorganized.

his lack of preparation and lack of knowledge showed. whether that means much for the election is, however, an open question.

[Chris Coles]

Re: Trump to win?

I accidentally deleted the recording before watching it; must be some sort of inner mind event that did not want to watch.

[shiny!]

Re: Trump to win?

Oh, c'mon! Doesn't anyone have an opinion on the debate? I fell asleep halfway through and my Tivo didn't record the last half hour. Nobody's nose grew two feet long, nobody burst into flames. Disappointing, really...

[lektrode]

Re: Trump to win?

well... hope y'all have your popcorn and (adult) beverages all ready,
for The Most Important TV and likely Most Watched program in US History?
(and no, its not the NFL's january bread n circus show)

it ought to be a beaut.

[wayiwalk]

Re: Trump to win?

Thanks - that does sound a lot nicer!

[vt]

Re: Trump to win?

"Men are mutts; Women are mixed Pedigree"

Quoted by VT

[wayiwalk]

Re: Trump to win?

I love it. I always considered the only correct answer to the question "what do you consider yourself?" when asked of an american citizen their background not to be "an american", but instead, "american". A subtle but important distinction.

Can't say I'm as much as a mutt as either of you, just Russian - German . There used to be a family story that suggested we had berber african in our blood, but 23andme put that rumor to death.

[Woodsman]

Re: Trump to win?

...I call myself "American.")

Me too, my sister from anotha mutha! Family first.

[shiny!]

Re: Trump to win?

One only an immigrant of Italian, Irish and German stock could dare envision and a Jew dare put into words, praise God in Her infinite jest. It's the biography of Bissell and Angleton made fiction. It's based on a ghost story. Helms is there too, and poor Clover and Mary too, what women!

Thank you, sir! I have to see that movie now because I'm an Irish, French Cajun, German, Russian, Polish, Jewish, Roman Catholic Sikh. (I call myself "American.")

[Woodsman]

Re: Trump to win?

What movie is that from, Woody?

One only an immigrant of Italian, Irish and German stock could dare envision and a Jew dare put into words, praise God in Her infinite jest. It's the biography of Bissell and Angleton made fiction. It's based on a ghost story. Helms is there too, and poor Clover and Mary too, what women!

[shiny!]

Re: Trump to win?

What movie is that from, Woody?

[Woodsman]

Re: Trump to win?

Book Review

Chris Hedges on Thomas Frank

During Barack Obama’s administration there has been near-total continuity with the administration of George W. Bush, especially regarding mass surveillance, endless war and the failure to regulate Wall Street. This is because the mechanisms of corporate power embodied in the deep state do not change with election cycles. The election of Donald Trump, however distasteful, would not radically alter corporate control over our lives. The corporate state is impervious to political personalities. If Trump continues to rise in the public opinion polls, the corporate backers of Hillary Clinton will start funding him instead. They know Trump will prostitute himself to money as assiduously as Clinton will.

Our political elites, Republican and Democrat, were shaped, funded and largely selected by corporate power in what John Ralston Saul correctly calls a coup d’état in slow motion. Nothing will change until corporate power itself is dismantled...

But Frank fails to grasp that the Democratic elites, along with our financial and corporate elites, are one entity. They are formed in the same institutions, run in the same social circles and cross-pollinate like bees. This has been true since the country’s formation. Harvard and Yale were designed, like Oxford and Cambridge in Britain, to perpetuate the plutocracy. They do an admirable job.

Hillary Clinton sat in the front row for Donald Trump’s third wedding. And Chelsea Clinton, living in a multimillion-dollar penthouse in New York City, was until the current presidential campaign a close friend of Ivanka Trump. George W. Bush, although doltish and inept, graduated from Andover, Yale and Harvard Business School. His appointees were no less steeped in elitist Ivy League credentials than those around Bill Clinton or Barack Obama. Paul Wolfowitz attended Cornell and the University of Chicago. Donald Rumsfeld went to Princeton. Henry “Hank” Paulson graduated from Dartmouth and Harvard Business School before working for Goldman Sachs. Lewis “Scooter” Libby went to Yale and Columbia Law School (as well as the pre-prep school that I attended). Joshua Bolten, a chief of staff for President George W. Bush, went to Princeton and Stanford Law School.

I guess you'll never understand the mindset. It's "our" country. "We" own it. "We" built it. The rest of you are just visitors.

Speaking as a charter member until you find common cause and take ownership yourselves, with all that means, you'll never, ever change a goddamn thing. Of course, that's when the next civil war begins.

How far would you go to protect your birthright and all that was bequeathed to you? All the way? Understand, that's how those in first families think. Until you convince them that they will lose it all unless they are willing to give you the equity you earned, nothing of substance will change. And even then, I know many of them are prepared to burn it all down before they give you a quarter acre.

Don't believe me? That's okay, too.