Donald Trump & 2016 Election

[pilferk]

I wonder if Trump understands if his grand plan of "bombing the shit" out of Isis (aka Syria) while not allowing refugees to..IDK...go anywhere...means you are, essentially and largely, killing innocent bystanders.

So far, during his speech, that's his "big secret plan" to deal with Isis.  Thats what he was going to talk about, and...so far...that's all we've really gotten. "Bomb the shit out of them".

[GeorgeSteele]

I wonder if Trump understands if his grand plan of "bombing the shit" out of Isis (aka Syria) while not allowing refugees to..IDK...go anywhere...means you are, essentially and largely, killing innocent bystanders.

So far, during his speech, that's his "big secret plan" to deal with Isis.  Thats what he was going to talk about, and...so far...that's all we've really gotten. "Bomb the shit out of them".

Sad! 

Regardless of the election outcome, hasn't this country essentially already lost by having this POS so close to the most powerful position in the world?  What does that say about Americans to the rest of the world? 

[tim_m]

I wonder if Trump understands if his grand plan of "bombing the shit" out of Isis (aka Syria) while not allowing refugees to..IDK...go anywhere...means you are, essentially and largely, killing innocent bystanders.

So far, during his speech, that's his "big secret plan" to deal with Isis.  Thats what he was going to talk about, and...so far...that's all we've really gotten. "Bomb the shit out of them".

Sad! 

Regardless of the election outcome, hasn't this country essentially already lost by having this POS so close to the most powerful position in the world?  What does that say about Americans to the rest of the world? 

It says there are a lot of hateful bigoted racist assholes here.

[tim_m]

I wonder if Trump understands if his grand plan of "bombing the shit" out of Isis (aka Syria) while not allowing refugees to..IDK...go anywhere...means you are, essentially and largely, killing innocent bystanders.

So far, during his speech, that's his "big secret plan" to deal with Isis.  Thats what he was going to talk about, and...so far...that's all we've really gotten. "Bomb the shit out of them".

So basically his big plan is to do what President Obama is already doing minus helping the refugees find a safe place to go?

[C0ma]

Those odds are actually taken not from me, but from the actual likelihood (based on events) of being killed by a radicalized refugee in the world.  I had read this somewhere other than vox..but it was the first google popup.

http://www.vox.com/2016/9/20/12986886/donald-trump-jr-terrorist-skittles-wrong

I get his point (which is problematic in itself)...his scale is just so far off as to make the analogy meaningless.

Again, you are FAR more likely to get hit by a car, crossing the street.  And your same logic would apply: It's going to happen to someone, inevitably...until it doesn't.

I get what you are saying, and understand the numbers as presented but that is if you are looking at it as what are the odds that 'I' get killed by a Syrian Refugee, and not what are the odds that a Syrian Refugee kills 'any' American. While still far off, that is closer to his flawed Skittle bowl reference. It is the odds of 1 refugee out of 10,000 being radicalized, it was very difficult for him to explain it properly with the huge silver spoon in his mouth.

No refugee has ever committed a terrorist act on american soil ever. Could it happen? Of course, but i could die after typing this too.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/01/07/us/terror-charges-refugees/

[tim_m]

Those odds are actually taken not from me, but from the actual likelihood (based on events) of being killed by a radicalized refugee in the world.  I had read this somewhere other than vox..but it was the first google popup.

http://www.vox.com/2016/9/20/12986886/donald-trump-jr-terrorist-skittles-wrong

I get his point (which is problematic in itself)...his scale is just so far off as to make the analogy meaningless.

Again, you are FAR more likely to get hit by a car, crossing the street.  And your same logic would apply: It's going to happen to someone, inevitably...until it doesn't.

I get what you are saying, and understand the numbers as presented but that is if you are looking at it as what are the odds that 'I' get killed by a Syrian Refugee, and not what are the odds that a Syrian Refugee kills 'any' American. While still far off, that is closer to his flawed Skittle bowl reference. It is the odds of 1 refugee out of 10,000 being radicalized, it was very difficult for him to explain it properly with the huge silver spoon in his mouth.

No refugee has ever committed a terrorist act on american soil ever. Could it happen? Of course, but i could die after typing this too.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/01/07/us/terror-charges-refugees/

Ok but neither of those actually committed any act of terror. One lied and one trying to supply materials. That's still different then successfully committing an act of terror.

[C0ma]

Those odds are actually taken not from me, but from the actual likelihood (based on events) of being killed by a radicalized refugee in the world.  I had read this somewhere other than vox..but it was the first google popup.

http://www.vox.com/2016/9/20/12986886/donald-trump-jr-terrorist-skittles-wrong

I get his point (which is problematic in itself)...his scale is just so far off as to make the analogy meaningless.

Again, you are FAR more likely to get hit by a car, crossing the street.  And your same logic would apply: It's going to happen to someone, inevitably...until it doesn't.

I get what you are saying, and understand the numbers as presented but that is if you are looking at it as what are the odds that 'I' get killed by a Syrian Refugee, and not what are the odds that a Syrian Refugee kills 'any' American. While still far off, that is closer to his flawed Skittle bowl reference. It is the odds of 1 refugee out of 10,000 being radicalized, it was very difficult for him to explain it properly with the huge silver spoon in his mouth.

No refugee has ever committed a terrorist act on american soil ever. Could it happen? Of course, but i could die after typing this too.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/01/07/us/terror-charges-refugees/

Ok but neither of those actually committed any act of terror. One lied and one trying to supply materials. That's still different then successfully committing an act of terror.

They got caught... what if they weren't caught like in San Bernadino or New York/New Jersey?

I'm not trying to argue against helping out a group of people who need it (especially a group that we have had a hand in their misfortune), but you can't ignore what has happened recently in Europe. There is a risk that needs to be recognized and handled, but not by closing the borders.

[tim_m]

Those odds are actually taken not from me, but from the actual likelihood (based on events) of being killed by a radicalized refugee in the world.  I had read this somewhere other than vox..but it was the first google popup.

http://www.vox.com/2016/9/20/12986886/donald-trump-jr-terrorist-skittles-wrong

I get his point (which is problematic in itself)...his scale is just so far off as to make the analogy meaningless.

Again, you are FAR more likely to get hit by a car, crossing the street.  And your same logic would apply: It's going to happen to someone, inevitably...until it doesn't.

I get what you are saying, and understand the numbers as presented but that is if you are looking at it as what are the odds that 'I' get killed by a Syrian Refugee, and not what are the odds that a Syrian Refugee kills 'any' American. While still far off, that is closer to his flawed Skittle bowl reference. It is the odds of 1 refugee out of 10,000 being radicalized, it was very difficult for him to explain it properly with the huge silver spoon in his mouth.

No refugee has ever committed a terrorist act on american soil ever. Could it happen? Of course, but i could die after typing this too.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/01/07/us/terror-charges-refugees/

Ok but neither of those actually committed any act of terror. One lied and one trying to supply materials. That's still different then successfully committing an act of terror.

They got caught... what if they weren't caught like in San Bernadino or New York/New Jersey?

I'm not trying to argue against helping out a group of people who need it (especially a group that we have had a hand in their misfortune), but you can't ignore what has happened recently in Europe. There is a risk that needs to be recognized and handled, but not by closing the borders.

If they weren't stopped they would've been the first and obviously it would be bad and very unfortunate. Of course there's a risk. At some point i am sure it will happen. Like they say there's a first time for everything.  There's risk in in everything though. Overall i don't think the risk is all that high. It's definitely something to be considered during the vetting of refugees. Agreed, closing the borders and building walls etc is not the way to go. This is a country made up largely by immigrants and refugees. Closing the borders would go against everything this country is supposed to stand for.

[GeorgeSteele]

2 people arrested, and 0 attacks, out of 785,000 refugees in the US since 9/11 shows the current vetting process is working well.  Those aren't even necessarily vetting 'mistakes', could just be guys whose ideologies went extreme after entering, just as there are US citizens who at some point adopt extremist ideologies later in life and commit domestic terrorism, which is the much bigger threat based on recent years' attacks.
 

[pilferk]

Those odds are actually taken not from me, but from the actual likelihood (based on events) of being killed by a radicalized refugee in the world.  I had read this somewhere other than vox..but it was the first google popup.

http://www.vox.com/2016/9/20/12986886/donald-trump-jr-terrorist-skittles-wrong

I get his point (which is problematic in itself)...his scale is just so far off as to make the analogy meaningless.

Again, you are FAR more likely to get hit by a car, crossing the street.  And your same logic would apply: It's going to happen to someone, inevitably...until it doesn't.

I get what you are saying, and understand the numbers as presented but that is if you are looking at it as what are the odds that 'I' get killed by a Syrian Refugee, and not what are the odds that a Syrian Refugee kills 'any' American. While still far off, that is closer to his flawed Skittle bowl reference. It is the odds of 1 refugee out of 10,000 being radicalized, it was very difficult for him to explain it properly with the huge silver spoon in his mouth.

No refugee has ever committed a terrorist act on american soil ever. Could it happen? Of course, but i could die after typing this too.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/01/07/us/terror-charges-refugees/

Ok but neither of those actually committed any act of terror. One lied and one trying to supply materials. That's still different then successfully committing an act of terror.

They got caught... what if they weren't caught like in San Bernadino or New York/New Jersey?

I'm not trying to argue against helping out a group of people who need it (especially a group that we have had a hand in their misfortune), but you can't ignore what has happened recently in Europe. There is a risk that needs to be recognized and handled, but not by closing the borders.

Um...neither of those attacks involved refugees.

One was perpetrated by a u.s. Born citizen and his foriegn born bride, whi became a u.s. Citizen (marrage visa). The other was perpetrated, apparently, by a u.s. Citizen who has been here since he was 7.  All seem to have been self radacalized by the internet.

So...we should ban the internet. Much better odds of self radicalization via that method than any refugee radicalizations (i'd love to see evidence of that 1 in 10k becomes radicalized number...becase i think its bunk. So far its 0 in 800k for Syrian Refugees in the states).

The point is, those 2 IRAQI refugees were caught..and neither was involvec in any direct actions. One was giving material aid (money), the other basically lied about having contact with a terrorist organization. That, to me,shows the vetting works.

[pilferk]

From the study quoted by vox, earlier:

Of the 3,252,493 refugees admitted from 1975 to the end of 2015, 20 were terrorists, which amounted to 0.00062 percent of the total. In other words, one terrorist entered as a refugee for every 162,625 refugees who were not terror- ists. Refugees were not very successful at killing Americans in terrorist attacks. Of the 20, only three were successful in their attacks, killing a total of three people.

The three refugee terrorists were Cubans who committed their attacks in the 1970s and were admitted before the Refugee Act of 1980 created the modern rigorous ref- ugee-screening procedures currently in place. Two of the Cuban terrorists assassinated a Chilean dissident and his American aide. The third Cuban terrorist assassinated a Cuban exile leader who supported a closer United States relationship with Fidel Castro.

Many of the refugees arrested after 9/11 were admitted as children, and in some cases there is doubt over whether their attacks even qual- ify as terrorism.

So....about 1 in 163k were arrested for terrorism. And, of the 3.2 million refuguees, there has been exactly one american killed (the other two deaths were foreign nationals).

So, even using your "any american" scenario, that would be 3 poison skittles amongst about 9.6 million skittles. Thats 3 people, out of a population larger than that in the city of New York.  And thats being generous, since the one American death predates the more serious refugee vetting that goes on, today. And that ignores the fact NO ONE is suggesting bringing in 3.2 million...never mind 10.6 million...refugees. And that thats one death...over 40 years.

Yup, i'm still telling you: that bowl of skittles is so large as to make the 3 poison skittles a nonfactor. Your odds are still better to get hit by a car and killed than to be killed by a radicalized refugee.

[tim_m]

From the study quoted by vox, earlier:

Of the 3,252,493 refugees admitted from 1975 to the end of 2015, 20 were terrorists, which amounted to 0.00062 percent of the total. In other words, one terrorist entered as a refugee for every 162,625 refugees who were not terror- ists. Refugees were not very successful at killing Americans in terrorist attacks. Of the 20, only three were successful in their attacks, killing a total of three people.

The three refugee terrorists were Cubans who committed their attacks in the 1970s and were admitted before the Refugee Act of 1980 created the modern rigorous ref- ugee-screening procedures currently in place. Two of the Cuban terrorists assassinated a Chilean dissident and his American aide. The third Cuban terrorist assassinated a Cuban exile leader who supported a closer United States relationship with Fidel Castro.

Many of the refugees arrested after 9/11 were admitted as children, and in some cases there is doubt over whether their attacks even qual- ify as terrorism.

So....about 1 in 163k were arrested for terrorism. And, of the 3.2 million refuguees, there has been exactly one american killed (the other two deaths were foreign nationals).

So, even using your "any american" scenario, that would be 3 poison skittles amongst about 9.6 million skittles. Thats 3 people, out of a population larger than that in the city of New York.  And thats being generous, since the one American death predates the more serious refugee vetting that goes on, today. And that ignores the fact NO ONE is suggesting bringing in 3.2 million...never mind 10.6 million...refugees.

Yup, i'm still telling you: that bowl of skittles is so large as to make the 3 poison skittles a nonfactor. Your odds are still better to get hit by a car and killed than to be killed by a radicalized refugee.

Which goes back to what i basically said on the last page. I'm more likely to die after typing this then i am via radicalized refugees.

[Dr. Blutarsky]

The debate of the century became the worst debate of the century.

Lester Holt sucked. It is what he didn't ask I take issue with. No questions to her about the Clinton Foundation, her server, or her health. Nothing about immigration, climate change, Supreme Court appointments, and college tuition.

Trump was obviously rattled & Hillary wasn't challenged nearly as much as Trump by Lester Holt.

Hillary's email explanation was pretty pathetic.

Think this was a draw, dont see this moving the needle. Many people Ive seen talk about last night were underwhelmed.

Dont feel we really learned anything new. Maybe I should have watched the Saints vs falcons game.

[pilferk]

The debate of the century became the worst debate of the century.

Lester Holt sucked. It is what he didn't ask I take issue with. No questions to her about the Clinton Foundation, her server, or her health. Nothing about immigration, climate change, Supreme Court appointments, and college tuition.

Trump was obviously rattled & Hillary wasn't challenged nearly as much as Trump by Lester Holt.

Hillary's email explanation was pretty pathetic.

Think this was a draw, dont see this moving the needle. Many people Ive seen talk about last night were underwhelmed.

Dont feel we really learned anything new. Maybe I should have watched the Saints vs falcons game.

1) And nothing about Trumps charity paying off legal bills, his proven false charity claims, his international business dealings and their potential conflict of interest, or his shady business dealings (some of these things were brought up by HRC....which Trump couldn't resist...but not Holt...but even in those cases were not adequately addressed by the candidate).

2) I would offer that Trump was challenged more for a couple reasons: His factual innaccuracies were much more egregious and OBVIOUS (stop and frisk, his support of the Iraq war, and his Birther stuff) AND the fact HE challenged the moderators facts, during the questions being asked (again, the stop and frisk question).

3) First up....it wasn't a mod question so she's under no obligation to address it, at all.  That said, I thought that was about as well as Hillary has handled the email thing for the past few weeks. I'm not sure what more you want (I mean..I know what you want...you want her to admit something that may not be true...that she's a criminal and it was all a nefarious plot and that she intentionally had those emails deleted because they show further nefarious dealings...but you are never going to get that, especially not in that forum). That was akin to "Yup, I fucked up...sorry".  At this point, every detail is out there and has been done to death.  What more is she going to add, other than an obvious mea culpa?  TBH, that's the marked difference between these two candidates: When HRC is wrong....she will eventually cop to it and change course.  Trump doubles down on the mistake, digs his heels and, and just gives you more of the same.  Take a look at his comments on Fox this morning Re: The miss universe winner he mistreated. That's Trump in a nutshell.

4) HRC won this debate in a landslide, AS A DEBATE. It wasn't close. Trump lost on points, committed NUMEROUS and obvious factual errors (yes, she had some too..but mostly she fudged and played obvious semantic games...he was just flat out wrong or demonstrably lied (witness his denial of the climate change assertion...which was tweeted out in 2012...and his campaign tried to delete from his feed IN REAL TIME DURING THE DEBATE LAST NIGHT)), he was and generally looked unprepared with anything other than generalities and platitidues.  In addition, HRC hit with a LOT more of her talking points and counterpunches. In general, he was AWFUL. AWFUL AWFUL.

5) In addition, Trump didn't look presidential, at all.  The constant interruptions, his overall tone, his complete and total inability to control himself while HRC was speaking...all of it created TERRIBLE optics.  And he was OBVIOUSLY tired by the end.  There were times his answers were so rambling, and nonsensical, at the end that you wondered wtf was actually coming out of his mouth.  In essence, the way he appeared....it was like the polar opposite of what any undecided or independent voter wants to see.

6) Trump might have won (or gotten a draw), via the bully pulpit.  He bludgeoned her on "more of the same", "doing this for 30 years", and the anti-establishment platform.  His constant shouting over and interrupting, for some, is going to be seen favorably (though you're going to have a LOT of women who cringe at his antics). He basically acted like he did on the apprentice...an entertaining asshole who some folks will find relatable.  He landed funny lines when confronted with not paying taxes and rooting for the housing bubble to pop, that are going to land well (and in a different era would cost him 5 points in the polls). All that probably played well in some places....like the folks who are NOT going to look at the fact checking, etc, and are just going to take the debate as it came.

7) It won't move the needle much, if at all.  Trump supporters got exactly what they want from the guy...someone to get up there and bully, belittle, and yell at someone they hate. It was a rah rah ditto head example of exactly what every person who supports him would like to be able to do (and probably done about as well as a spontaneous example of that confrontation would go for that person).  HRC supporters got exactly what they wanted from him, too (and probably what they want from her)...which is a guy who looked unfit to serve as president because he is completely unable to restrain himself and act diplomatic or reserved. He was an asshole, pretty much starting about 25 minutes in. Nobody landed a knock out punch, and I doubt anything last night would sway the undecideds or indies.  If anything, Trump may have effectively ended any "outreach" to minority voters (or, rather, he might have pushed his gains back, and ended his ability to reclaim them), but that's about it.  This morning's double down on his comments about women may have done more harm than anything he said last night....so that shot by HRC might actually have a delayed, and larger, effect. We'll see.

I will reiterate something I said earlier: If honesty is your primary issue in this election, you can't vote for either one of these candidates.  I will also say that Trump is quickly gaining on, if not overtaking, HRC in terms of dishonesty and lie/inaccuracy to truth ratios.

I'm still voting for #Cthulhu.

[Dr. Blutarsky]

I would have liked Hillary to be asked why all the conflicting explanations regarding her email server. Leaving it at " I made a mistake and Ill never do it again" sounds like something my 8 year old daughter could get away with.

We know what Trump's immigration policy is. What is Hillary's immigration policy? Same thing we are doing now which is really pathetic.

What is each's stance on medical marijuana?

I could go on. Lets hope for a more informative 2nd debate. Need to remember to run out and get coffee for the VP debate to keep from falling asleep with those 2 exciting  & charismatic individuals.

Hillary was definitely more prepared. But also came across as pretty scripted with no real substance behind it, nothing new was offered, lots of progressive talking points.

Trump started off well, but lost his composure about a third of the way in and when he talked over Lester Holt at the tail end of the debate, that did not look good. He left a lot on the table he could have used against Hillary. She on the other hand did not hold back when it came to personal attacks. Trump did not play the infidelity card regarding Bill and Hillary's subsequent attacks on the former mistresses.

For the record, on Monday night the falcons beat the Saints 45-32. Saints have yet to win a game this season.

[pilferk]

I would have liked Hillary to be asked why all the conflicting explanations regarding her email server. Leaving it at " I made a mistake and Ill never do it again" sounds like something my 8 year old daughter could get away with.

We know what Trump's immigration policy is. What is Hillary's immigration policy? Same thing we are doing now which is really pathetic.

What is each's stance on medical marijuana?

I could go on. Lets hope for a more informative 2nd debate. Need to remember to run out and get coffee for the VP debate to keep from falling asleep with those 2 exciting  & charismatic individuals.

Hillary was definitely more prepared. But also came across as pretty scripted with no real substance behind it, nothing new was offered, lots of progressive talking points.

Trump started off well, but lost his composure about a third of the way in and when he talked over Lester Holt at the tail end of the debate, that did not look good. He left a lot on the table he could have used against Hillary. She on the other hand did not hold back when it came to personal attacks. Trump did not play the infidelity card regarding Bill and Hillary's subsequent attacks on the former mistresses.

For the record, on Monday night the falcons beat the Saints 45-32. Saints have yet to win a game this season.

1) Everything else is pretty much out there......  People are angry, I get it. But...she's not gonna fall on her sword just to make them all happy.  She's not going to relitigate or reiterate the same details again.  It's a waste of time.  TBH, I think the "You're right, I made a mistake, I'm sorry" approach is a LOT better for her than the previous tact.  It will resound with the folks that actually might be swayed.  NOTHING she does on the campaign trail (short of her signing a confession, quitting the race, and willingly putting on an orange jumpsuit) is ever going to make the majority of the super duper angry folks happy. They're not stopping in chanting "Lock her up" because of anything she says (since it wouldn't be anything new) in a 15 minute response during a debate.  They didn't like her hours of testimony in front of Congress, for cripes sake, and there were heated, pointed questions asked there.  And again: If honesty and transparency is your big issue.....Trump is no better...and might just actually be worse (based on intent), depending on whether you think Hillary's acts were intentional.

2) Check her web site. Pretty much what it is now, yes. There's some small changes, but...not anything game changing.  I agree, 100%, we need to do more to curb and control immigration.  I think Trumps ideas are harebrained, unenforceable, unworkable, EXPENSIVE (as in, the cost outwieghs the benefits) as fuck and, quite frankly, assinine.  Hers are just as assenine and hairbrained.  Again, my opinion: They both suck.

3) Hillary is for it.  Trumps stance, I think,  is also Pro.  And if they're both for it, I doubt you'll ever get a debate question on it. (FYI: Kaine and Pence...both against it).

4) I might skip the VP debate.  I just don't care about these two guys enough...or their opinions on things enough. Pence will probably clean Kaine's clock.

5) Prepared often comes across as scripted...I'm OK with that given the alternative (Trumps style that night). I'd rather, when my president is dealing with issues, they are more scripted (and especially foreign policy).  Your mileage may vary.

She did drop some new policy nuggets in there, though I don't think the questions really lent themselves well to complicated policy discussions (which, honestly, you'd think would be to Trumps benefit).  And, of the two candidates, she certainly talked more about solutions and policy during her time (maybe you couldn't hear her with Trump shouting over her? I'm being serious...I had to re-read the transcript to pick up on some of it). Trump did well for about 20 minutes, on trade deals...and then obviously could not deal with HRC talking, at all. You could almost see him go from the little boy doing the pee pee dance, and control himself, to just deciding to fuck it and piss himself.  From that moment on, Trump basically screamed "wrong", "fire" and "I can put it out, trust me" all night (as he weirdly sniffed...wtf was that?).  He didn't even manage much in the way of talking points. He didn't counter punch. He basically proved HRC's claim that he can be easily baited...and even in taking the bait, swung at it badly.  He also gave himself presidential powers that DO NOT EXIST, under the constitution, when he was talking about putting out the various fires he identified...which was interesting. He was not the Babe Ruth of Debating. He was not even the Aaron Judge of debating. He was the 2016 version of A-rod of debating. He was big, dumb, slow, and plodding to her quickness and agility. He tried to freestyle, and failed, miserably.  She decided to Riverdance, practiced her ass off, and did pretty well (there were a few missteps, for sure). Neither one is winning America's got Talent, but it seemed to work better for her. But, again, I doubt it has any real effect on the polls.  I think the delayed hit of the Miss Universe stuff might have more effect...we'll see. 

Town Hall style next time, which should make for interesting questions and, in some respects, voter pulse taking.  I'm not sure who vets and approves the questions in this one, yet.  I'll have to start poking around. I THINK it's the commission, ABC, and CNN (with consideration of questions some put up by, and  to be voted on, by the public), but the moderatora might have some discretion during the debate itself...and these moderators (Cooper and Radatz) are likely to pick some toughies, IMHO.

[tim_m]

I would have liked Hillary to be asked why all the conflicting explanations regarding her email server. Leaving it at " I made a mistake and Ill never do it again" sounds like something my 8 year old daughter could get away with.

We know what Trump's immigration policy is. What is Hillary's immigration policy? Same thing we are doing now which is really pathetic.

What is each's stance on medical marijuana?

I could go on. Lets hope for a more informative 2nd debate. Need to remember to run out and get coffee for the VP debate to keep from falling asleep with those 2 exciting  & charismatic individuals.

Hillary was definitely more prepared. But also came across as pretty scripted with no real substance behind it, nothing new was offered, lots of progressive talking points.

Trump started off well, but lost his composure about a third of the way in and when he talked over Lester Holt at the tail end of the debate, that did not look good. He left a lot on the table he could have used against Hillary. She on the other hand did not hold back when it came to personal attacks. Trump did not play the infidelity card regarding Bill and Hillary's subsequent attacks on the former mistresses.

For the record, on Monday night the falcons beat the Saints 45-32. Saints have yet to win a game this season.

1) Everything else is pretty much out there......  People are angry, I get it. But...she's not gonna fall on her sword just to make them all happy.  She's not going to relitigate or reiterate the same details again.  It's a waste of time.  TBH, I think the "You're right, I made a mistake, I'm sorry" approach is a LOT better for her than the previous tact.  It will resound with the folks that actually might be swayed.  NOTHING she does on the campaign trail (short of her signing a confession, quitting the race, and willingly putting on an orange jumpsuit) is ever going to make the majority of the super duper angry folks happy. They're not stopping in chanting "Lock her up" because of anything she says (since it wouldn't be anything new) in a 15 minute response during a debate.  They didn't like her hours of testimony in front of Congress, for cripes sake, and there were heated, pointed questions asked there.  And again: If honesty and transparency is your big issue.....Trump is no better...and might just actually be worse (based on intent), depending on whether you think Hillary's acts were intentional.

2) Check her web site. Pretty much what it is now, yes. There's some small changes, but...not anything game changing.  I agree, 100%, we need to do more to curb and control immigration.  I think Trumps ideas are harebrained, unenforceable, unworkable, EXPENSIVE (as in, the cost outwieghs the benefits) as fuck and, quite frankly, assinine.  Hers are just as assenine and hairbrained.  Again, my opinion: They both suck.

3) Hillary is for it.  Trumps stance, I think,  is also Pro.  And if they're both for it, I doubt you'll ever get a debate question on it. (FYI: Kaine and Pence...both against it).

4) I might skip the VP debate.  I just don't care about these two guys enough...or their opinions on things enough. Pence will probably clean Kaine's clock.

5) Prepared often comes across as scripted...I'm OK with that given the alternative (Trumps style that night). I'd rather, when my president is dealing with issues, they are more scripted (and especially foreign policy).  Your mileage may vary.

She did drop some new policy nuggets in there, though I don't think the questions really lent themselves well to complicated policy discussions (which, honestly, you'd think would be to Trumps benefit).  And, of the two candidates, she certainly talked more about solutions and policy during her time (maybe you couldn't hear her with Trump shouting over her? I'm being serious...I had to re-read the transcript to pick up on some of it). Trump did well for about 20 minutes, on trade deals...and then obviously could not deal with HRC talking, at all. You could almost see him go from the little boy doing the pee pee dance, and control himself, to just deciding to fuck it and piss himself.  From that moment on, Trump basically screamed "wrong", "fire" and "I can put it out, trust me" all night (as he weirdly sniffed...wtf was that?).  He didn't even manage much in the way of talking points. He didn't counter punch. He basically proved HRC's claim that he can be easily baited...and even in taking the bait, swung at it badly.  He also gave himself presidential powers that DO NOT EXIST, under the constitution, when he was talking about putting out the various fires he identified...which was interesting. He was not the Babe Ruth of Debating. He was not even the Aaron Judge of debating. He was the 2016 version of A-rod of debating. He was big, dumb, slow, and plodding to her quickness and agility. He tried to freestyle, and failed, miserably.  She decided to Riverdance, practiced her ass off, and did pretty well (there were a few missteps, for sure). Neither one is winning America's got Talent, but it seemed to work better for her. But, again, I doubt it has any real effect on the polls.  I think the delayed hit of the Miss Universe stuff might have more effect...we'll see. 

Town Hall style next time, which should make for interesting questions and, in some respects, voter pulse taking.  I'm not sure who vets and approves the questions in this one, yet.  I'll have to start poking around. I THINK it's the commission, ABC, and CNN (with consideration of questions some put up by, and  to be voted on, by the public), but the moderatora might have some discretion during the debate itself...and these moderators (Cooper and Radatz) are likely to pick some toughies, IMHO.

Lets not forget all the faces he was making while he was talking ala Al Gore in 2000 and we know how that turned out. I get that people are upset that certain topics weren't broached but it was only 90 minutes. There's only so much you can cover in that amount of time. Then you had trump interrupting and yelling while Hillary was answering. Holt clearly wanted to move on to another question multiple times but Trump just wouldn't shut his trap. And you're right this so far hasn't changed the polls much. The only ones Trump is winning is that LA/USC one and Bloomberg by the skin of his teeth. Everything else has Hillary up by between 1-7 points.

[Dr. Blutarsky]

 A good read.  I admit that  I'm not necessarily on board with his views on immigration and trade, but we do need a viable 3rd party so we dont get stuck again with 2 choices, which to me are one not that great and the other quite worse.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/28/opinion/gary-johnson-take-a-deep-breath-voters-there-is-a-third-way.html?_r=0

Gary Johnson: Take a Deep Breath, Voters. There Is a Third Way.


By GARY JOHNSON    SEPT. 28, 2016

The America I know wasn?t on the television screen on Monday night. My America is about the freedom to make choices, pursue your dreams and use your skills as entrepreneurs. It is about having more choices than just red versus blue.

Americans want to be able to choose a president who is capable of reason, of learning from failures, and of telling them the truth, even when it hurts. Most of all, they want to choose a president who will adhere to the Constitution and will make government live within its means.

I?m offering that choice. I wasn?t part of the presidential debate on Monday, but as Americans listened in dismay to the so-called major parties? candidates, Google searches for ?Gary Johnson? skyrocketed.

I?m the third candidate ? the leader of the Libertarian Party. My name will be on every ballot alongside that of my running mate, Bill Weld, who like me was a twice-elected Republican governor of a strongly Democratic state. Contrary to the Republican and Democratic presidential candidates, Bill and I don?t believe the United States is a polarized nation.

We don?t deny that there are very real tensions on the fringes, and we can?t simply ignore those tensions. But when it comes down to the basics, most Americans really aren?t that far apart.

Our kids are better educated than ever before. Our technology enables entrepreneurship and transparency. Our military is second to none, as it should be. But our two-party political system is an entirely different story. Hyper-partisanship may be entertaining, but it?s a terrible way to try to run a country. We?re the alternative ? and we?re the only ticket that offers Americans a chance to find common ground.

People might call us fiscal conservatives. Like most Americans, I believe that government does too much and costs too much. As governor of New Mexico, I vetoed more than 750 bills and reduced government involvement in business, better known as ?crony capitalism.?

Some would call us social liberals. I?ve been vocal in criticizing the disparity in the treatment of black Americans by the police. I want reform in our criminal justice and sentencing systems. ?Three strikes? laws and mandatory minimums have put the United States among the world leaders in incarceration. Treating drug use and abuse as crimes, rather than health issues, has put far too many Americans behind bars.

What would government be like in a Johnson administration? First, we would begin the conversation about the size of government by submitting a real balanced budget. Every government program would have to justify its expenditures, every year. Cuts of up to 20 percent or more would be on the table for all programs, including military spending. Changes to Social Security and Medicare must also be considered.

As governors, we balanced our budgets and reduced taxes: I cut taxes 14 times; Bill Weld did so 21 times in his six years leading Massachusetts. It just requires commitment and certainty.

Hillary Clinton?s and Donald J. Trump?s proposals call for much more spending. Both parties are responsible for our unsustainable fiscal problems: President George W. Bush nearly doubled our national debt, to $10 trillion from $5.7 trillion. President Obama is on track to double it again.

Second, we would protect the Constitution and civil liberties and stop treating immigration as a bad thing. In the difficult case of abortion, I support a woman?s right to choose. I?ve long supported civil liberties, including marriage equality and freedom from mass surveillance.

Given the way it has served as both a launching pad and a crash-landing site for Republican presidential prospects, immigration was strangely absent from Monday?s debate. Neither the Republican-controlled Congress nor President Obama has done anything to fix the dysfunctional immigration system. Deporting millions of noncriminal undocumented immigrants and building a wall, as Mr. Trump proposes, are ludicrous ideas.

A majority of Americans can actually agree on a solution. We would allow those immigrants who are here without documents, but with otherwise clean records, to come forward, pay taxes, undergo a background check and legally reside in the United States. We?d eliminate categories and quotas on immigration, and border enforcement would be devoted to keeping out real criminals and would-be terrorists.

Third, we would offer free trade to all nations, but limit military intervention to when our nation is attacked. We would honor all treaty obligations and pursue strategic alliances that made our country safer.

Mrs. Clinton wants to continue a muddled mix of intervention, regime change and bombing campaigns. That approach brought us Syria, Iraq, Libya and failed nation-building in Afghanistan. Our troops and the American people deserve clear objectives, with a well-drawn distinction between defense and futile interventions. And our troops deserve authorization from Congress for their activities overseas, an important detail that has fallen by the wayside.

The same common-sense attitude applies to trade and diplomacy. Our ticket is the only one to support free trade. The goal is to enhance prosperity and peace without sending our young people to war.

Less than six weeks before Election Day, independents and, particularly, young voters are increasingly turning to Bill Weld and me as reasonable, rational and experienced candidates. We are the party that can break the partisan gridlock which for too long has kept real solutions out of reach.

Gary Johnson, the governor of New Mexico from 1995 to 2003, is the Libertarian Party nominee for president.

[pilferk]

More concerning information about Trumps business dealings, this time related to Cuba:

http://www.newsweek.com/donald-trump-cuban-embargo-castro-violated-florida-504059

[pilferk]

A good read.  I admit that  I'm not necessarily on board with his views on immigration and trade, but we do need a viable 3rd party so we dont get stuck again with 2 choices, which to me are one not that great and the other quite worse.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/28/opinion/gary-johnson-take-a-deep-breath-voters-there-is-a-third-way.html?_r=0

Gary Johnson: Take a Deep Breath, Voters. There Is a Third Way.


By GARY JOHNSON    SEPT. 28, 2016


Gary Johnson, the governor of New Mexico from 1995 to 2003, is the Libertarian Party nominee for president.

And last night, in an interview, when asked to name a World Leader he admired...he could not think of a single name, until his VP jumped in to rescue him.

In the midst of his hemming and hawing he admitted to having another "Aleppo moment".

Even the Libertarians can't manage to field a respectable, knowledgeable, decent candidate.....I would KILL for Romney vs Obama, again.

Cthulhu 2016.