• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Presidential Debates

The Don said:
I hope you're right but I cannot see how he could could be even worse than he was last time. I mean he wasn't so bad (from a performance rather than content) for the first few minutes but thereafter he was:

  • Rude and obnoxious
  • Unfocused
  • Gish galloping
  • Lying his *** off
  • Snurfling
  • and worst of all, low energy

If he comes out attacking Hillary from the start then even though it may be strategically a stupid idea, he'll be applauded for his energy.
Click to expand...

Donald Trump is a ignorant moron with a personality disorder. He definitely can't beat Hillary in a debate.
 
Tony Stark said:
Donald Trump is a ignorant moron with a personality disorder. He definitely can't beat Hillary in a debate.
Click to expand...

You're absolutely right if he's being judged objectively against Hillary.

The trouble is that he will be being judged subjectively and against his own poor showing in the first debate.
 
The Don said:
You're absolutely right if he's being judged objectively against Hillary.

The trouble is that he will be being judged subjectively and against his own poor showing in the first debate.
Click to expand...
People (though certainly not me) were convinced that all he had to do was not drop his pants and take a dump on the stage to win the debate in terms of public opinion. Wrong.

I am extremely confident that most people will think he loses the next two debates, perhaps even more than the first. I would bet a lot of money on it if I knew someone who would take me up.
 
Last edited:
The Don said:
You're absolutely right if he's being judged objectively against Hillary.

The trouble is that he will be being judged subjectively and against his own poor showing in the first debate.
Click to expand...

I think that still leaves his win/draw condition as act like an adult which he has already failed to meet. He already had the bar set on the floor for him to step over and still managed to trip on it. The second debate is also not going to draw the record setting and engaged audience the first had.
 
The Don said:
You're absolutely right if he's being judged objectively against Hillary.

The trouble is that he will be being judged subjectively and against his own poor showing in the first debate.
Click to expand...
Even those who want to believe in Trump but accept his failure in the debates can simply discount their significance. After all, negotiations don't take place in front of an audience, and it's as a negotiator they expect Trump to do great things.
 
The Don said:
I hope you're right but I cannot see how he could could be even worse than he was last time. I mean he wasn't so bad (from a performance rather than content) for the first few minutes but thereafter he was:

  • Rude and obnoxious
  • Unfocused
  • Gish galloping
  • Lying his *** off
  • Snurfling
  • and worst of all, low energy

If he comes out attacking Hillary from the start then even though it may be strategically a stupid idea, he'll be applauded for his energy.
Click to expand...

No. It'll be spun as an energetic performance. He was applauded by the media and pundits on both sides for his performance in the first twenty minutes when he was actually able to connect some of his bombast with the ideas he's been selling. When he lost it, he lost the narrative and he lost the first debate. It was his "high energy attack" that did him in.

Why would anyone then think, four weeks later, that this is a good thing. He doesn't need to rally the believers. They are evident in their defense of his first debate. He needs to convince the dubious. Coming out on the attack - the way he's proposing, going for the personal - will not play well with the audience that matters.
 
The Don said:
If he comes out attacking Hillary from the start then even though it may be strategically a stupid idea, he'll be applauded for his energy.
Click to expand...
If the last debate is anything to go by Trump won't follow an attack through but will meander off into self-praise. The downside of an attack on Clinton is that it's necessarily about Clinton, and not about Trump. And he hates that.
 
Foolmewunz said:
Why would anyone then think, four weeks later, that this is a good thing. He doesn't need to rally the believers. They are evident in their defense of his first debate. He needs to convince the dubious. Coming out on the attack - the way he's proposing, going for the personal - will not play well with the audience that matters.
Click to expand...
As you say, Trump needs to convince the dubious, and he needs to avoid losing even more of them. Since he has the believers anyway, his people have to be wondering if it's worth the risk. The ground is already prepared for a grand exit.
 
The Great Zaganza said:
Trump's chance of being dirty has passed: he could have gone very low and then gotten more civilized the 2nd and 3rd time around.
He can't descend into the gutter now and think he'll come out the other end looking presidential.
Click to expand...

We'll see.

"You had the nerve to disparage ME on how I treat women? Really? REALLY?

What about the way you and your husband treated (long list of names)? "Nuts and sluts" you called it. You should be ashamed, ashamed of the way you treated those poor women. Good thing for Monica she kept that dress. Am I right, people? And you have the nerve to lecture ME. Give me a break!"

Not saying I agree, but I think that might actually work.
 
Last edited:
In the Gary Johnson thread, there was a comment about the question of "Who is your favorite supreme court justice" asked (apparently) in the Others debate on Tuesday.

I would love to see Trump be asked that question. What are the odds he couldn't name one?
 
pgwenthold said:
In the Gary Johnson thread, there was a comment about the question of "Who is your favorite supreme court justice" asked (apparently) in the Others debate on Tuesday.

I would love to see Trump be asked that question. What are the odds he couldn't name one?
Click to expand...
He isn't that ignorant.* And he has already said that Clarence Thomas is his favorite.

*Though he does apparently think that if he was president he could have the Supreme Court look into Hillary's emails.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom