2016 Presidental Debates - Donald J Trump vs Hillary R Clinton

  • Want to keep track of this thread?
    Accounts can bookmark posts, watch threads for updates, and jump back to where you stopped reading.
    Create account
May as well get this thread out of the way now. Any bets on who screams first (or if Hillary passes out)

First Debate: Monday September 26th, at 9PM at Hofstra University.

It will be streamed on YouTube for free.

Edit: lol fucked up the date
 
Last edited:
Click to expand...
I don't think Trump did well, and I don't think it's part of some brilliant strategy on his part to pretend to be retarded. I think he simply is so full of himself that he expected Clinton to just shrivel up at the sight if him.

As for the content, nothing surprising. Just the standard Republican lies that rich people are oppressed by having to pay taxes, deregulation is a magical cure-all, and all problems are caused by everyone who isn't the same as you. The kind of thing their base has been eating up for years.
 
Cunty Boo Boo said:
If I were an undecided voter, I probably would've been more swayed by Donald last night. I'm a registered Democrat, I'm going to vote for Hillary (not because I feel obligated to vote for a Democrat, more because Democrat is almost always going to align more with my personal beliefs and politics, and she's no exception). But I will say this--she lacks charisma, and what everyone says about her answers sounding so robotic and rehearsed is true. Trump kind of went off on some strange rabbit trails, but he spoke in a way that seemed sincere. I don't like him, but I will admit that. And whoever is managing him/his campaign now is brilliant--because he didn't resort to personal attacks, and he often even agreed with Hillary and had no problem admitting when he did.

Do I like Trump? Haha, no. Hell no. But I respect him more than I did before. And as a diehard liberal, I think something like that should be worrying to the Democrats. There are people like me out that who, while being a liberal Democrat, don't particularly like or want to vote for Hillary (after all, I was a Bernie supporter) and while I won't vote for Trump, Hillary completely failed to charm me. I'll still vote, but I wouldn't be surprised if liberal voters who were considering voted for Jill Stein have now decided to.
Click to expand...
Not to sound rude, but voting for a candidate because you feel obligated to based on party affiliation is dumb, I'm a non partisan Conservative and I'm going for Trump.
 
Well-prepared Clinton barely better than raving lunatic in debate

The experts agree after tonight’s presidential debate: Hillary Clinton won a narrow victory against the raving lunatic.

Clinton benefited from long and thorough preparations. That allowed her to, especially near the end of the debate, appear marginally better than the psychotic bully at the opposite side.

A source in the Clinton camp confides that Clinton has worked like a dog to appear somewhat palatable.

Despite health troubles, she has spent many hours training the muscles around her mouth. We all saw the result yesterday: something resembling a smile.

Worked feverishly

While Trump made no preparations, Hillary Clinton has spent years gathering what might be the world’s best team of political advisors. Over the past few days, her advisors have worked feverishly to make Clinton marginally more likable than the giant man-baby she is up against.

The Hillary camp has analyzed hours of footage of Trump to find weak points in his mad tales. That way, she managed to create a convincing illusion that he has a few more flaws than she does.

An Ounce of Vagina said:
I don't think Trump did well, and I don't think it's part of some brilliant strategy on his part to pretend to be exceptional.
Click to expand...

166431303798436.jpg
 
An Ounce of Vagina said:
As for the content, nothing surprising. Just the standard Republican lies that rich people are oppressed by having to pay taxes, deregulation is a magical cure-all, and all problems are caused by everyone who isn't the same as you. The kind of thing their base has been eating up for years.
Click to expand...

The paradigm shift this election of that diet finally consuming the political party of Lincoln to the point that they couldn't promote one of their own politicians nationally over a former New York liberal national punchline is the most fascinating long term political story of my lifetime and why the anticipation and letdown was historic last night in my estimation. It's not Al Capone's vault with Rivera level but it's worse than John Flynt's video game re-release. I've been hoping for a viable third political party in the country to emerge to break out of this corporate funded false illusion of choice since I've been old enough to vote but instead it's one party deciding to roll the dice with implosion just in an attempt to remain relevant because the most current former leader of the country that they have who they roundly like among themselves has over a decade in a casket and his widow's now catching up with what she missed about him.

(ETA: Art of the Deal was ghost-written. The ghost writer is the troll-face.)
 
The_Doctor said:
Not to sound rude, but voting for a candidate because you feel obligated to based on party affiliation is dumb, I'm a non partisan Conservative and I'm going for Trump.
Click to expand...

I literally said in my post that that's exactly what I'm NOT doing. I'm NOT voting Democrat because I feel I have to, but because my beliefs will almost always align with theirs, almost never with the Republican party. Did you just stop reading after "registered Democrat"?
 
Cunty Boo Boo said:
I literally said in my post that that's exactly what I'm NOT doing. I'm NOT voting Democrat because I feel I have to, but because my beliefs will almost always align with theirs, almost never with the Republican party. Did you just stop reading after "registered Democrat"?
Click to expand...

No, that's exactly what you're doing. You're letting your membership within the Democratic Party cloud your judgment. So you're basically saying if Donald Trump was a Democrat and he had all the same beliefs as he does now, you'd be voting for him because he's on the Democrat ticket. The presidency should not be about Democrat vs. Republican, it should be about looking into each candidate's ideals and considering the lesser of two evils. You basically admitted that Trump charmed you during the debate and that Hillary was a borefest, but because Hillary is Democrat you got to go with your party's instincts. That's the number one problem with Americans voting, you can't let your party dictate who's automatically going to be your choice because you're a leftist or a rightist. Frankly, when Ted Cruz (my candidate) dropped from the race I was seriously going to go on the side of Bernie Sanders because I looked into his campaign and found his ideals were less toxic than that of Trump or Clinton, and I'm a registered Republican. But then he dropped from the race and now we are left with two uninspiring mudslingers. I don't know who I'm voting for, but just because I'm a registered Republican does not mean I'm voting for Trump.

EDIT: There's no law stating that if you're a member of a certain party you have to vote for that party's nomination. I seriously believe people think there is.
 
Asuka said:
No, that's exactly what you're doing. You're letting your membership within the Democratic Party cloud your judgment. So you're basically saying if Donald Trump was a Democrat and he had all the same beliefs as he does now, you'd be voting for him because he's on the Democrat ticket. The presidency should not be about Democrat vs. Republican, it should be about looking into each candidate's ideals and considering the lesser of two evils. You basically admitted that Trump charmed you during the debate and that Hillary was a borefest, but because Hillary is Democrat you got to go with your party's instincts. That's the number one problem with Americans voting, you can't let your party dictate who's automatically going to be your choice because you're a leftist or a rightist. Frankly, when Ted Cruz (my candidate) dropped from the race I was seriously going to go on the side of Bernie Sanders because I looked into his campaign and found his ideals were less toxic than that of Trump or Clinton, and I'm a registered Republican. But then he dropped from the race and now we are left with two uninspiring mudslingers. I don't know who I'm voting for, but just because I'm a registered Republican does not mean I'm voting for Trump.

EDIT: There's no law stating that if you're a member of a certain party you have to vote for that party's nomination. I seriously believe people think there is.
Click to expand...

If Donald Trump was the Democratic nominee with all of the beliefs he had now I wouldn't vote for him. I don't like Hillary as a person, I don't find her charismatic, but her stances on political issues align with mine. It has nothing to do with her affiliation. If she were not a Dem, I'd still vote for her.

So no, that's exactly not what I'm doing.

EDIT: I'm not saying that last night I liked what Trump said, but I like how he said it. Vice versa with Hillary.
 
Cunty Boo Boo said:
I literally said in my post that that's exactly what I'm NOT doing. I'm NOT voting Democrat because I feel I have to, but because my beliefs will almost always align with theirs, almost never with the Republican party.
Click to expand...

Cunty Boo Boo said:
If I were an undecided voter, I probably would've been more swayed by Donald last night. I'm a registered Democrat, I'm going to vote for Hillary (not because I feel obligated to vote for a Democrat, more because Democrat is almost always going to align more with my personal beliefs and politics, and she's no exception).

Hillary completely failed to charm me. I'll still vote, but I wouldn't be surprised if liberal voters who were considering voted for Jill Stein have now decided to.
Click to expand...

So, did I miss something here? I'm not trying to shitpost or anything, I'm just confused as to your wording. Your first post was worded in that you support the Democrat Party in almost every single issue, but you didn't find Hillary appealing at all during the debate. Your second post you said that had you have not been a Democrat, Donald would have made you think twice about your choice. You said "I'm a registered Democrat, I'm going to vote for Hillary....more because Democrat is almost always going to align more with my personal beliefs and politics." This tells me that you're putting party over policy, I mean I could be mistaken but from what you typed you pretty much put that out there.
 
Asuka said:
So, did I miss something here? I'm not trying to shitpost or anything, I'm just confused as to your wording. Your first post was worded in that you support the Democrat Party in almost every single issue, but you didn't find Hillary appealing at all during the debate. Your second post you said that had you have not been a Democrat, Donald would have made you think twice about your choice. You said "I'm a registered Democrat, I'm going to vote for Hillary....more because Democrat is almost always going to align more with my personal beliefs and politics." This tells me that you're putting party over policy, I mean I could be mistaken but from what you typed you pretty much put that out there.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I think it's just a misunderstanding, fam. No worries.

When I said "if I were an undecided voter" I meant that if I had no idea who I was voting for. He didn't make me think twice about my choice, just that I have a little more respect for him than I did before (which, isn't hard considering I had none for him before). I'm going to vote for Hillary because I believe in her stances. Had Bernie Sanders chosen to continue running as an Independent, I would have voted for him, because I agreed most with him. I'm 100% with you that people who vote their party ONLY because it's their party are really dumb. For me, I don't feel loyalty to the party itself, but the values the party holds most closely represent my own, so while I won't for someone JUST because they are a Dem, the chances are I WILL vote for that person because they're probably representing values I believe in.

I hope that clears it up.
 
Maybe this is bias, but the one thing I've seen concurrent in all Clinton supporters is that they're just nasty. I think that's due to the reason why people tend choose to support each candidate. People who like Trump might like some policies but most people are just wanting to see what happens. People who like Clinton already know it's going to be 8 more years of downward spiraling economic situations, foreign invasions, and terrorist attacks on US soil. However, they vehemently believe that Trump is literally insane and also the reincarnation of Hitler, so if you vote for him you're an awful person.

Contradicting the first line of that paragraph, I can't imagine thinking someone is a bad person based on who they vote for. I just think they're grossly misinformed and putting up with way more baggage than any other candidate could ever get away with, typically because they really hate Trump for a specific (and usually petty) reason. I'm pretty sure most Hillary supporters are very, very aware of just how wretched a creature Clinton is, and that's why they get so nasty if they're confronted about it. They don't want to recognize that Clinton has endangered national security and international peace many times, because the alternative is voting for a person they hate for very emotional reasons.

So that is to say, I don't think they're bad people, but the nasty, visceral reactions they give in defense of their candidate (usually Trump being racist/sexist/etc) is not something that particularly convinces me to consider their side.
 
Ebola said:
Well-prepared Clinton barely better than raving lunatic in debate

The experts agree after tonight’s presidential debate: Hillary Clinton won a narrow victory against the raving lunatic.

Clinton benefited from long and thorough preparations. That allowed her to, especially near the end of the debate, appear marginally better than the psychotic bully at the opposite side.

A source in the Clinton camp confides that Clinton has worked like a dog to appear somewhat palatable.

Despite health troubles, she has spent many hours training the muscles around her mouth. We all saw the result yesterday: something resembling a smile.

Worked feverishly

While Trump made no preparations, Hillary Clinton has spent years gathering what might be the world’s best team of political advisors. Over the past few days, her advisors have worked feverishly to make Clinton marginally more likable than the giant man-baby she is up against.

The Hillary camp has analyzed hours of footage of Trump to find weak points in his mad tales. That way, she managed to create a convincing illusion that he has a few more flaws than she does.
Click to expand...

Are you saying the "best team of political advisors" came up with the Pepe stuff? I'm afraid I am not believing that!
 
Null said:
Maybe this is bias, but the one thing I've seen concurrent in all Clinton supporters is that they're just nasty. I think that's due to the reason why people tend choose to support each candidate. People who like Trump might like some policies but most people are just wanting to see what happens. People who like Clinton already know it's going to be 8 more years of downward spiraling economic situations, foreign invasions, and terrorist attacks on US soil. However, they vehemently believe that Trump is literally insane and also the reincarnation of Hitler, so if you vote for him you're an awful person.

Contradicting the first line of that paragraph, I can't imagine thinking someone is a bad person based on who they vote for. I just think they're grossly misinformed and putting up with way more baggage than any other candidate could ever get away with, typically because they really hate Trump for a specific (and usually petty) reason. I'm pretty sure most Hillary supporters are very, very aware of just how wretched a creature Clinton is, and that's why they get so nasty if they're confronted about it. They don't want to recognize that Clinton has endangered national security and international peace many times, because the alternative is voting for a person they hate for very emotional reasons.

So that is to say, I don't think they're bad people, but the nasty, visceral reactions they give in defense of their candidate (usually Trump being racist/sexist/etc) is not something that particularly convinces me to consider their side.
Click to expand...
The one one on one discussion I've had with a Clinton supporter was at my local fair when I got screamed at while wearing a Trump shirt while walking past the Democratic Party booth to get some fucking ice cream.
 
The big takeaway for me is that Clinton's emotional armour is as definitely weak against Trump's usual shit-talking as Trump's advisers hoped it would be. Her first response to being hammered on was to smile smugly, throw up her hands and whine "Oh, I guess I'm gonna be blamed for everything, huh?" like a housewife in a domestic dispute. Hillary's spent most of her career surrounded by sycophants browbeat into agreeing with her and Trump has an opportunity to expose her thin skin. Choosing to ramble on about his golf courses and other bullshit nobody cares about instead of doing just that was his big mistake.

It doesn't look good for Clinton that she barely eeked out a victory even though Trump had zero preparation and sabotaged himself at every opportunity. If he gets his shit together at the next debate, he'll win handily.
 
Looks like CNN may have jumped the gun a bit with their snap poll since according to this, the majority of snap polls show trump won. However I wouldn't take this as a sign he's the winner yet since these polls are unscientific and don't represent the whole voter base. Plus these polls are just samples of the userbases and it's not like they could ever be biased. Also it's from the Daily Mail, so I'm really gonna take these polls with a huge grain of salt. I'm gonna wait for the official polls before I get optimistic. All I'm gonna say is that Trump will have to up his game for the second and third debate.
 
I agree with the narratives that he was caught off-guard and was holding back to have Hillary exhaust all her material right away. I think what happened is a combination of those two theories.

I think Trump planned on holding back from the beginning, because he seemed more subdued than usual. But then he ended up getting caught off-guard because he didn't expect Hillary to come out swinging as quickly or completely as she did.

For someone who didn't do much preparation beforehand, though, I'd say he did pretty well. Contrast to Hillary who allegedly prepared greatly and ended up coming across as being just as delusional and crazy as people like to paint Trump as.

If you notice, though, the "mean bully" Trump didn't fire off ANY personal attacks (none that I can remember anyway). Hillary, however, threw character attack after character attack. "He's racist," "he's delusional," "he's hiding something," etc. Trump even went out of his way to make sure he addressed her properly at one point, and towards the end he said something like "I could say something that could be devastating to her and her family, but I won't" (probably something about Bill's "habits").
 
Last edited:
Darwin Watterson said:
Trump even went out of his way to make sure he addressed her properly at one point, and towards the end he said something like "I could say something that could be devastating to her and her family, but I won't" (probably something about Bill's "habits").
Click to expand...

Yeah that was during the "Does Trump hate women?" question. I think he wanted to bring up the really nasty stuff Hillary has said about Bill's conquests over the years. That was a good move in my opinion, since anyone who knows anything about the Clinton family knows exactly what he was going to say, but by not actually saying it he comes off as the bigger person.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom