[Discussion] First Presidential Debate 8pm (CT)

Pages

Discuss the debate as it is on going Monday.

One of the things I enjoy when there is a gaming press conference is the thread about it and how it goes on with new comments, reflections, etc. so I am making this thread now so we can put the conversation about the debate in one place.

Hope to see you all Monday!

NYT article wrote:

Hillary Clinton is determined to get under Donald J. Trump’s skin at Monday’s debate, and is testing attack lines to try to rattle him.

It sounds like she's handing him the metaphorical home field advantage.

Dr_Awkward wrote:
NYT article wrote:

Hillary Clinton is determined to get under Donald J. Trump’s skin at Monday’s debate, and is testing attack lines to try to rattle him.

It sounds like she's handing him the metaphorical home field advantage.

Depends; about the only way the press will call him out is if he literally uses a c-, b-, or n- word on camera.

Dr_Awkward wrote:
NYT article wrote:

Hillary Clinton is determined to get under Donald J. Trump’s skin at Monday’s debate, and is testing attack lines to try to rattle him.

It sounds like she's handing him the metaphorical home field advantage.

Ehhhhhhhh, we saw him literally got on stage trying to defend the size of his hands and penis thanks to one off-hand remark. We saw him spend a week talking about how he was totally justified in trying to "out sacrifice" a Gold Star family for them calling him out. I could see one well-placed/timed/executed comment on his fitness making him into a mess for the rest of the debate.

There's no scenario where Clinton wins this. She will get dragged down to Trumps level just like everyone in the Republican debates did and you can't beat Trump at his game. This is going to get Ugly

TheGameguru wrote:

There's no scenario where Clinton wins this. She will get dragged down to Trumps level just like everyone in the Republican debates did and you can't beat Trump at his game. This is going to get Ugly

I dunno, a well-timed "oh, grow up!" or "no wonder Milo calls you daddy" could do wonders for her.

TheGameguru wrote:

There's no scenario where Clinton wins this. She will get dragged down to Trumps level just like everyone in the Republican debates did and you can't beat Trump at his game. This is going to get Ugly

I actually think the event itself will be boring and dry. It's the commentary and narrative spin afterwards that will be repellant.

Can't agree with you. Trump does not want to face "You had her right there, why didn't you go for the throat?!". He has to live up to his aggressive, macho character with her in the conversation.

Plus, Trump's been getting cocky lately. I don't think Hillary even needs to engage/insult him directly, just set him up and let him dig his own grave.

Robear wrote:

Can't agree with you. Trump does not want to face "You had her right there, why didn't you go for the throat?!". He has to live up to his aggressive, macho character with her in the conversation.

Alternatively, he doesn't say much and is praised in the media for being "restrained and Presidential."

I think that may be more likely. Depends on how he reacts to Hillary's arguments. If he refuses to be drawn in he might pull it off, even though to non-believers he'll come off as detached from reality.

I'm also looking forward to Lester Holt fact-checking the ever loving sh*t out of Trump. This election has been as much about the failure of our media as anything else.

PaladinTom wrote:

I'm also looking forward to Lester Holt fact-checking the ever loving sh*t out of Trump. This election has been as much about the failure of our media as anything else.

It would be appropriate if the media's plan for big ratings all along was to be down and out on the canvas, and then rise up like Hulk Hogan and finish him off with whatever the journalistic equivalent of an atomic leg drop is.

Now a big hubub because Hillary gave a ticket to Mark Cuban. And now Trump says he's going to invite one of Bill's supposed former mistresses to sit in the front row too.

Stele wrote:

Now a big hubub because Hillary gave a ticket to Mark Cuban. And now Trump says he's going to invite one of Bill's supposed former mistresses to sit in the front row too. :?

Because some how it's her fault he couldn't keep it zipped up. Of course, apparently neither did Donald...

I wonder if Donald's exes and rape victims would fill out the rest of the front row.

When Trump cheats on his wives it's a sacrifice he makes to build so many great things. When Bill Clinton cheated it's Hillarys fault.

Robear wrote:

I think that may be more likely. Depends on how he reacts to Hillary's arguments. If he refuses to be drawn in he might pull it off, even though to non-believers he'll come off as detached from reality.

Yeah, I think it's much easier for him to address his main negative (temperament) by not losing his mind during the debate.

Temperament is his main negative? Not misogyny, incompetence in business, fraud, bribery, philandering, tax evasion or habitual lying? (All of which, I may point out, are not speculative but are supported by facts, his own statements, and court cases...).

Frankly, the whole spoiled Preppy atmosphere he projects is the thing I would most expect from him, given his background... To me, his temperament is the thing that distracts from the other stuff for his fans, because some people really love to see rich people cut loose and show that they are "real", large and in charge. After all, they didn't get rich by following the rules!

Robear wrote:

Temperament is his main negative? Not misogyny, incompetence in business, fraud, bribery, philandering, tax evasion or habitual lying? (All of which, I may point out, are not speculative but are supported by facts, his own statements, and court cases...).
Frankly, the whole spoiled Preppy atmosphere he projects is the thing I would most expect from him, given his background... To me, his temperament is the thing that distracts from the other stuff for his fans, because some people really love to see rich people cut loose and show that they are "real", large and in charge. After all, they didn't get rich by following the rules!

I'm sorry, liking this wasn't enough.

SillyRabbit wrote:
Robear wrote:

Temperament is his main negative? Not misogyny, incompetence in business, fraud, bribery, philandering, tax evasion or habitual lying? (All of which, I may point out, are not speculative but are supported by facts, his own statements, and court cases...).
Frankly, the whole spoiled Preppy atmosphere he projects is the thing I would most expect from him, given his background... To me, his temperament is the thing that distracts from the other stuff for his fans, because some people really love to see rich people cut loose and show that they are "real", large and in charge. After all, they didn't get rich by following the rules!

I'm sorry, liking this wasn't enough.

Agreed!

NormanTheIntern wrote:
Robear wrote:

I think that may be more likely. Depends on how he reacts to Hillary's arguments. If he refuses to be drawn in he might pull it off, even though to non-believers he'll come off as detached from reality.

Yeah, I think it's much easier for him to address his main negative (temperament) by not losing his mind during the debate.

Not ignorance of the issues, or inexperience in governing and government?

I think by "negative" Norman meant "thing that will get voters to turn on him." However true the rest of those thing are or how much they spell doom for him once he actually has to be the President and not just a candidate, none of those other things seem to hurt his chances of getting into the White House like the temperament issue.

sometimesdee wrote:

Not ignorance of the issues, or inexperience in governing and government?

Robear wrote:

Temperament is his main negative? Not misogyny, incompetence in business, fraud, bribery, philandering, tax evasion or habitual lying?

Honestly, I find myself agreeing with Norman on this one. The country has dealt with ignorant and inexperienced Presidents before, and survived - indeed, the current President only had a half term as a Senator before being elected. Misogyny, incompetence, fraud, bribery, philandering, tax evasion, lying - these we've all seen before, and indeed are common enough among politicians to barely warrant mention.

Trump's temperament, on the other hand - his tendency to overreact, his obvious desire to punish and humiliate his opponents instead of merely defeating them, his casual attitude towards other people's human and civil rights - those are the kinds of personality traits in a President that lead to massacres, war crimes, and potentially the ill-considered use of nuclear weapons. Of all of Trump's faults, his temperament is by far the worst and most dangerous aspect of his personality.

If Clinton is smart, she will do every she can to get Trump to lose control during the debate.

But have we seen all of them converge upon the same person at the same time?

Also, Obama had seven years as a state senator.

Bush 2 seemed pretty ignorant to me at times. At least he probably recognized it was a problem and took steps to correct it or at least hide it. Hell, even Palin had her flash cards. Trump seems to revel in his ignorance. Maybe that's happened in the past, but it seems unprecedented in my lifetime to see a major party nominee so disdainful of knowledge. This terrifies me. It disgusts me that the public has allowed him to come this far.

But yeah, the temperament thing is pretty frightening... I mean, what's scarier than the prospect of pointless nuclear war?

Plus a career in community service.

Aetius, the idea that criminality in politicians is not worth mentioning, or is incredibly common, I think is mistaken on both counts.

Convictions of federal officials dropped nearly a quarter from 1989 to 2011, the most recent year for which figures are available. Convictions of state officials doubled, thanks in part to a sharp one-time increase in 2011. Local officials’ convictions have remained comparatively steady.

A 2007 compendium of misdeed, “The Almanac of Political Corruption, Scandals and Dirty Politics,” concluded that fewer than 1 percent of the nearly 12,000 people who had served in Congress had been expelled, indicted or tried for crimes.

That probably is because few investigators were looking for crimes for much of that period. Still, the F.B.I. has stated that the arrest rate among the general public for white-collar crime — the sort that constitutes most political corruption — was 0.814 percent in the late 1990s.

“There’s a large majority of voters who believe it’s just endemic,” the book’s author, Kim Long, said in a telephone interview from Denver. “There’s no evidence that indicates it’s the case — zero.”

Well, perhaps not zero — particularly at lower levels of government. A 2012 study by researchers at the University of Illinois at Chicago calculated that 31 of the approximately 100 Chicago aldermen who had served since 1973 — and four of the seven governors — had been convicted of corruption. A 1992 F.B.I. sting involving bribery and horse-racing legislation netted convictions of nearly 11 percent of the Kentucky Legislature.

At the heights of political power, some analysts say, corruption is less widespread, but seems endemic because it is intensely covered — not just by newspaper and other news media outlets, but now by phalanxes of partisan political bloggers.

It goes on to note that it's important that we keep monitoring and investigating politicians just like other white collar types (as opposed to just shrugging and saying "Hey, they all do it".). But note well the point that corruption in Congress is very close to corruption in the general public, which belies the argument that people go into politics for the chance to make corrupt money.

Sorry, but presenting evidence that the government doesn't often criminally investigate itself - and particularly the powerful and influential politicians in the federal government - isn't exactly a resounding argument. After all, somehow Anthony Weiner is still walking around free, but there's no question he's a complete scumbag. It's far more likely for a politician or political operative to resign than it is for them to be prosecuted. It's also well-known that politicians routinely exempt themselves from certain laws.

And that's just the criminal aspect; the mechanisms of lobbying, pay-to-play, and the influence games played in Washington are well understood to be both corrupt and mostly legal. No one goes to jail for accepting millions of dollars in campaign donations from Wall Street, despite the obvious conflict of interest with regard to (supposedly) regulating Wall Street.

But note well the point that corruption in Congress is very close to corruption in the general public, which belies the argument that people go into politics for the chance to make corrupt money.

Of course they don't - they want power over other people, to bend them to their will. Money is just a tool and side-effect of the quest for power; a method of keeping score, in some ways.

And the American electorate keeps re-electing these people, so it's pretty clear that Americans don't really care. They simply assume that politicians are like that, and move on. That's why those aspects of Trump's personality don't seem to have any impact on his level of support.

Given that the rate of corruption for politicians is the same as the rate for white collar crime (corporate corruption and such), your position does not seem to hold. Corporate leaders can't hold themselves above the law, nor can they resign to escape charges, nor are they specially protected.

So why are the rates so close together? If you're right, then the government corruption rate should be near zero compared to corporate, but actually it's about 20% higher. Close... But higher.

That does not fit with your argument.

sometimesdee wrote:
NormanTheIntern wrote:
Robear wrote:

I think that may be more likely. Depends on how he reacts to Hillary's arguments. If he refuses to be drawn in he might pull it off, even though to non-believers he'll come off as detached from reality.

Yeah, I think it's much easier for him to address his main negative (temperament) by not losing his mind during the debate.

Not ignorance of the issues, or inexperience in governing and government?

Maybe it is better phrased as temperament is the main negative that can both drive people on the edge of supporting Trump away, while also motivating Clinton's support to make it to the polls.

So in the context of the debate and influencing the outcome I think it is not that far off.

Pages