patrick.net

Rashomon says

Anyone being honest would say Clinton was the clear winner in that.

Your opinion is really meaningless without even mentioning the incredible bias of Lester Holt.

6 follow ups on trump, none on Hillary.
41 interruptions of Trump, 7 on Hillary.
And false fact checking by Lester Holt...on Trump.

I'm objective, and I'd say Trump won. Trump talked about Hillary/the Clintons/the Establishment failings, and how President Trump will make it all better.

Hillary sat there all smug, talking about Trump.

I'm not sure how even one single person that was on the fence before the debate, is now an actual Clinton voter. However, i can see Trump gaining some votes last night, simply by not being all "racist, mean, and outrageous " as the 1%er media has been trying to scare people into thinking.

However:.

**Monday's Presidential debate is now over. Early odds have the Democrats expanding their lead to -250 over the Republican's +190.

The peso has been shadowing Trump

That shit was worse than I imagined it would be.
I weep for my nation.

http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2016/09/win-hillary-clinton

"Those who switched on this debate thinking that Mr Trump is not qualified to be president will not have changed their minds. Those who began by thinking that Mrs Clinton is a dangerous socialist who should be locked up will have seen nothing to change their minds. But what did the 10-20% of voters who tell pollsters that they are undecided, or planning to vote for a third party, see? They saw one candidate who was well-prepared and a bit rambling, and another who was downright weird at times. 1-0 to Mrs Clinton."

errc says

I'm objective

No you're not.

How could any hard working tax paying citizen, listen to Trump who supposedly a billionaire, say that his not paying taxes means he smart, without thinking "fuck him !"

This from the WSJ

Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump redoubled his attack on the Federal Reserve and its chairwoman, Janet Yellen, accusing the central bank of “doing political things” by keeping interest rates low.

“When they raise interest rates, you’re going to see some very bad things happen, because they’re not doing their job,” Mr. Trump said during a debate with Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton, accusing the Federal Reserve of being “more political” than his rival.

Mrs. Clinton didn't comment on Mr. Trump’s remarks about the Fed. But she has previously described it as inappropriate for candidates and presidents to weigh in on Fed actions.

Clinton Hacker found!!!

Trump should have asked Hillary about her plan for jobs in upstate New York that didn't work. And a whole bunch of other stuff that he is saving for the next debates, since it's really the last one that counts the most.

Based on the criteria I use to evaluate performance at a debate, I would have to say Hillary won. Now, you know it pains me to say this. But from a preparedness, poise, and fluency standpoint, Hillary, IMHO, clearly won. Trump was able to get in a few zingers, but that alone isn't enough to change the fact that he allowed himself to be led throughout most of the debate. To me, he appeared to have a lot to say, but didn't quite have his thoughts organized to get the words out in a clear way. He spent a lot of time repeating sentiments, which gave me the impression they were just place holders while he put his thoughts together (to avoid dead space). He should have had his thoughts together prior to the debate. Like it or not, these things boil down to a person's ability to perform for 90 straight minutes. He wasn't prepared and it showed.

That said, I think he had some very obvious challenges to overcome. Lester's questions were not exactly designed to give Trump any of his talking points. They were, however, very much designed to give Hillary her talking points. The questions were clearly influenced by the Clinton fact check memo, something that should not have been allowed --- BUT should have been expected by the Trump side. It was obvious that none of the tough questions for Hillary were ever in danger of being asked. When Trump tried to explain himself, he would be told he has 10 seconds to respond to a content-rich blast of derogatory statements by Clinton.

At the end of the day, however, he should know that there's a good chance that the moderators aren't going to be on his side. Therefore, it's in his best interest to prepare as if he's always up against both Clinton and the moderator. He wouldn't have needed to take weeks and weeks to prepare. He just needs to write down his thoughts and memorize the eloquent (though I'd take coherent) way to get them out there so he doesn't have to waste time in the debate thinking about how to say things... and he needed to practice regaining control of the direction of conversations. He needed to be vigilant about bringing the debate back around to the things that would put Hillary on the defensive. But none of that material really came up other than passing mentions and a couple of zingers.

He has a lot to do before the next debate. It isn't enough to have a message if you cannot get it out there. I hope that for the next debate, he will have a solid strategy on how to put Hillary on the defensive. She has a lot to answer to.

If history is any indication, last night's debate, the first debate, certainly doesn't have to mean much in the grand scheme of things. Romney won the first debate last time and that didn't end up getting him the Oval Office. Six weeks is a long time in politics.

So that's my analysis. Thank you for watching. For PNN on the World Wide Web, this is Turtledove.

marcus says

errc says

I'm objective

No you're not.

How could any hard working tax paying citizen, listen to Trump who supposedly a billionaire, say that his not paying taxes means he smart, without thinking "fuck him !"

Do you not take advantage of every and any chance available, to reduce your tax burden down as low as possible?

Why is that good for us, yet bad for Trump?

Somebody else in a comment on another blog sums it up perfectly:

"he said a lot of truths never heard on prime time before,
she said a lot of platitudes often heard on prime time"

Which do you think is more likely to influence voters?

http://dailycaller.com/2016/09/27/michael-moore-says-trump-won-the-debate/

Michael Moore Says that Trump Won!

turtledove is deplorable says

but that alone isn't enough to change the fact that he allowed himself to be led throughout most of the debate.

He wasn't incharge of the questions. He was masterful at answering their loaded back of crap questions then countering questions that the MSM has never ever talked about.
Hillary and Holt were horrified. And I'll tell you something else. That "Whew! OK!!!" then Hillary gyrating like a smacked out junkie that She is. Just got a dose of smack from her Black Knight Doctor via the remote controlled injected strapped to her leg next to her colostomy bag.

Even Micheal Moore thought she was a little contrite plugging her book and website and commanding the Fact Checkers. Which by the fucking way.
it's those assholse that has sent folks running to Trump in droves.
People are sick of unilateral facts. And those that decide which opinion is fact and which gets misreported.

http://dailycaller.com/2016/09/26/tom-hanks-said-america-will-be-fine-if-trump-wins-video/

turtledove is deplorable says

I would have to say Hillary won.

Given the clear prejudice of the moderator, did Hillary know the questions in advance?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3809204/Most-snap-polls-Trump-winning-debate-landslide.html

errc says

Do you not take advantage of every and any chance available, to reduce your tax burden down as low as possible?

I don't. I could keep chickens in my back yard, sell some eggs, and claim that my house is a farm to lower property taxes. I could also remodel my basement with very high end finishes, and then advertise it for rent for a few weeks at a very high price. Then, when it didn't rent, I could give up, use the space for personal things, and claim that all of the remodel costs were business expenses for my rental. I could have my wife start an accounting business, pay it $10K for doing my taxes and then use the business CC to pay for all of our dining out for the year as planning meetings. I could start a non-profit for saving stray animals, raise a bunch of money from suckers, and then use that non-profit to pay my wife exorbitant fees for medical services. I could then claim that she used 50% of my house to operate a business that provided those fees to further reduce my taxes.

You see, most people try to be as productive as possible at work, go about their life as they would like, and then either spend a day or two minimizing their taxes or paying an accountant to do so. Other people are compulsive cheating wretches. If they are worth the trouble, the IRS ends up auditing them every year, because the IRS knows that they cannot be trusted to self-report. It is not good business if you fall into the compulsive cheating wretch camp. Is Donald firmly in that camp? We can only speculate.

New debate rule. Every time you interrupt your opponent, the amount of time you spend talking is doubled, and that time is added to your opponents allotted time and deducted from yours.

If that doesn't work, they are going to half to erect a couple of walls on the back of the stage, so that the serial offender can sit in a chair in the corner.

zzyzzx is deplorable says

Michael Moore Says that Trump Won!

He either has secret empathy for his fellow fat melanin challenged oldster, or he is grasping at relevance straws by saying something controversial.

FP says

he said a lot of truths never heard on prime time before

What blog is that? Does Alex Jones or Gary run it?

turtledove is deplorable says

Like it or not, these things boil down to a person's ability to perform for 90 straight minutes. He wasn't prepared and it showed.

He lacked the stamina.

turtledove is deplorable says

Lester's questions were not exactly designed to give Trump any of his talking points.

Trump spent a lot of time complaining that Hillary was not being nice to him, and that he couldn't bring himself to be so mean to her. It was odd to hear from a guy who spends so much time telling us that we have to get tough and cannot be PC. Are you mirroring Trump, by complaining about how unfairly he is being treated?

indigenous says

“When they raise interest rates, you’re going to see some very bad things happen, because they’re not doing their job,” Mr. Trump said during a debate with Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton, accusing the Federal Reserve of being “more political” than his rival.

Mrs. Clinton didn't comment on Mr. Trump’s remarks about the Fed. But she has previously described it as inappropriate for candidates and presidents to weigh in on Fed actions.

I heard him sound off on Yellen. He said that she was propping up the economy to save Obama politically, and that they would stop the conspiracy as soon as Obama left office. Clinton should have offered to buy him a new tin foil hat for Christmas. He's clearly been overusing his current one.

The Deplorable DFJ says

6 follow ups on trump, none on Hillary.

41 interruptions of Trump, 7 on Hillary.

And false fact checking by Lester Holt...on Trump.

trump can't answer a simple question, so more followups is appropriate.

Most of the trump interuptions were to try to stop him from interrupting Hillary, which he did 71 times.

Laughing at you dumbass, your hero was unprepared, without a credible plan for anything, and a rude bully.

Trump spent a lot of rime on defense. Hillary spent time promoting socialism.

I like Trump, but I think he needs to do better in next debate. Don't think this last one changed a single opinion in the nation

YesYNot says

Yellen. He said that she was propping up the economy to save Obama politically, and that they would stop the conspiracy as soon as Obama left office.

The Fed did that more so in 2002 to 2004. But they still have this balance sheet which correlates to the S & P

YesYNot says

What blog is that?

http://www.ianwelsh.net/

errc says

marcus says

errc says

I'm objective

No you're not.

How could any hard working tax paying citizen, listen to Trump who supposedly a billionaire, say that his not paying taxes means he smart, without thinking "fuck him !"

Do you not take advantage of every and any chance available, to reduce your tax burden down as low as possible?

Why is that good for us, yet bad for Trump?

Errc, the govt provides this tax advantage to spur development - something it wants. Smart people know that and take advantage of it. Idiot whiny bitches like Marcus just moan. If not Trump some other person would take advantage of this because it's there specifically to be taken advantage of.

One thing Hillary did make clear last night, was that if elected, expect more of the same, meaning that a Hillary administration would be essentially a continuation of the Obama administration..

Government employees don't pay any federal income taxes.

I mean, they file them, and they can claim that they pay taxes, but that's just for show.

Their income is my tax dollars. So they should STFU wrt paying taxes

errc says

Government employees don't pay any federal income taxes.

wow, another moronic statement from you.

errc says

Their income is my tax dollars. So they should STFU wrt paying taxes

A big ol glass of Shut The Fuck Up

Sharingmyintelligencewiththedumbasses says

wow, another moronic statement from you.

Actually another one from you, which is to be expected from a Berkeley Econ grad.

indigenous says

Actually another one from you, which is to be expected from a Berkeley Econ grad.

Sorry, you have me confused with that other guy... I did my graduate work back east.

YesYNot says

errc says

Do you not take advantage of every and any chance available, to reduce your tax burden down as low as possible?

I don't. I could keep chickens in my back yard, sell some eggs, and claim that my house is a farm to lower property taxes. I could also remodel my basement with very high end finishes, and then advertise it for rent for a few weeks at a very high price. Then, when it didn't rent, I could give up, use the space for personal things, and claim that all of the remodel costs were business expenses for my rental. I could have my wife start an accounting business, pay it $10K for doing my taxes and then use the business CC to pay for all of our dining out for the year as planning meetings. I could start a non-profit for saving stray animals, raise a bunch of money from suckers, and then use that non-profit to pay my wife exorbitant fees for medic...

I do. I've regularly turned down overtime, because it throws my wages into a higher tax bracket, and my time is far too valuable to spend it paying more taxes.

In fact, i base almost all of my decisions by considering the tax implications. That's what smart people do: avoid waste. As a hard working, freedom loving American, I cannot afford to be wasteful.

The song "Who's Crying Now" but "Who's lying Now" instead

Tenpoundbass says

He wasn't incharge of the questions.

I agree. And I said that. But a masterful debater doesn't give a shit about the questions. They will get their points out no matter what. You start with the premise that you are right and your opponent is wrong. That should be the conclusion drawn from all your answers. Then, you put together a list of the points you want to get out.... then you twist all answers to make those points. Just ask my husband, I do it all the time. ;)

Seriously, Trump needs a theme. If Trump wanted to make three points (or however many, but you have to keep it targeted or it becomes substantially more difficult) But let's say: 1) conflict of interest; 2) questionable/criminal behavior; 3) lack of trustworthiness...

Every answer should have followed these themes. How do we fix race divides? How do we strengthen the economy? The question doesn't matter. He says what he would do (ie, renegotiating trade agreements), but then brings every answer back to... The reason why things are the way they are is due to her conflicts of interest; questionable/criminal behavior; and lack of trustworthiness.... All emblematic of today's leadership. How can she fix the divide when you don't know whose side she's on? How can she fix the economy when you cannot trust which economy she's fighting for?

Saudi money -- conflict of interest;

deleted emails despite a subpoena -- questionable behavior;

history of her own racist/sexist behavior (super predators; going after victims of sexual harassment) and changing positions on things she once called the "gold standard" -- lack of trustworthiness.

Again and again and again. Put her in the position of having only two choices with what to do with her two minutes: 1) let the comment slide; 2) defend herself. If he keeps the theme simple, it's easier for people to identify the message, it's harder for her to ignore the comment, and it easier for him to master the facts so he can speak with greater precision.

I agree with the "Themes" argument made above.

He really needs to stick with trade and economics, because his numbers go way up when he talks about that.

The answer to race questions should be NAFTA and manufacturing again. "There used to be so Many GOOD jobs in these neighborhoods before NAFTA sent them all to Mexico." Detroit is a shithole primarily for that reason.

It would have been a great moment to use the "Can't drink water in Flint, Make cars in Mexico" line.

errc says

I do. I've regularly turned down overtime, because it throws my wages into a higher tax bracket, and my time is far too valuable to spend it paying more taxes.

that isn't how taxes work, you dumbfuck.

do you even know what marginal income and marginal expenses are?

errc says

I do. I've regularly turned down overtime, because it throws my wages into a higher tax bracket, and my time is far too valuable to spend it paying more taxes.

I don't know if you know this, but it doesn't throw your other wages into a higher tax bracket. When you get into a higher marginal tax bracket, only the additional income is taxed at the higher rate. So, if you are getting paid time and a half for overtime, your reasoning is not correct. If you are only offered your normal pay, and you value your free time more than your after tax income, so be it. Most people who are getting paid hourly, are not in a high tax bracket, so this argument would not make any sense for most people.

Anyway, the decision of when to work and not work is pretty routine and normal. There are plenty of very sleazy things that people can do to lower their taxes. We just don't know exactly how sleazy the Donald has been, because he won't show us. Logic tells us that there is something he is hiding.

How many of Trumps businesses, has Donald Trump taken from the U.S., and moved overseas, to avoid Environmental rega, use cheaper labor, and avoid taxes?

How many of Clintons?

I don't know of any for Trump, but off the top of my head, I remember a big one of the Clintons. Burger King. When Dem darling Buffet, used inversion, to 'steal' the taxes from the U.S., and give them to Canada. Because they "wanted to make Canadians happy". Very profitable move for 1% Dem darlings Buffet and Clinton, at the expense of the American people.

Like Trump said last night, politicians like Clinton won't stop our jobs being shipped to high pollution, low reg, low wage environments, because often times THEY OWN THESE COMPANIES! Goes to show that people like Clinton put her own profits before the working class citizens of this country