Hmm. Imagine that. Why do you think appealing to emotions works?
Hillary got under his skin with every attack she landed – he spent a good minute of each two minute response defending his non-release of taxes, his rent discrimination against black people in the 70s, his birther lies, his nuclear lunacy, etc. I don’t think he’s capable of not responding to such attacks – she’ll come up with a lot more for the next debates (assuming Trump shows up).
In this case, it’s not disagreement. It’s loads and loads of lies. So many lies. Tremendous lies.
That’s why being “so good at business” doesn’t make you qualified to run a country. At least part of it.
Spin seems to me overwhelmingly pro-Clinton. Would you dare duck out of the other debates if you were Trump? If you feel like you’d struggle again, just say no more and go on like nothing happened.
Surely this one will be a distant memory by the time November 8th rolls around.
Yeah, I think there’s a reasonable case to be made that Trump won the first 20 minutes. But the vast majority of people watching the last 70 are going to feel better about Clinton than about Trump.
I don’t have any experience with cocaine. Coke-knowers: is this how people act on coke? Is there a “tell” to it, or is it just as likely post-nasal drip?
Hill kills, Trump crumps!
Did he really say that? :eek:
Those things don’t matter, though. So what?
As Amy Walters said on PBS, and I really think this is going to be the key to the election:
Trump lost mainly because the debate became about him. Whenever the spotlight shines on one of them, they go down in the polls.
If cheapskate members want the US to fulfill treaty obligations then those members should fulfill theirs. That includes financial obligations.
I may not have transcribed it word-for-word, but basically, yes.
Every once in a while you come across somebody so irretrievably bad, that NOTHING can change the situation. That’s why we supported one megalomaniac mass-murderer over another megalomaniac mass-murderer in WWII.
That comes from him not being a politician. If he were, he would have a response pre-planned. It was perfectly obvious tonight that he would defend the rest of NATO. He just worded it in an inadvertently-misleading manner. He was trying to make the point that the other countries should “pay” the alliance as a whole, by living up to their spending obligations.
Frank Luntz, of all people, has an interesting thing in his Twitter feed, where he has gifs of his focus’ groups response to the questions being asked Hillary and Donald.
https://twitter.com/FrankLuntz
Since it’s Luntz, I don’t really trust him. But he seems to think this went solidly for Clinton. It’s interesting to see the graphs showing how his group is reacting to the candidates words (I mean, assuming that the stuff Luntz is posting isn’t entirely a lie). Luntz says that in the end, 6 of his group went Trump and 16 for Clinton … which at least sort of aligns with the idea that about 27% of the country is Republican madmen.
Big grain of salt - but interesting.
https://twitter.com/FrankLuntz
Does it make you angry and give you the sniffles?
So that’s a “yes,” you agree that if Russia invades an under-paying NATO country we should just say “Good Luck!”
Obvious to you, maybe. Not from his words, or his prior statements.
So I take it you do not agree with his prior position to let them hang?
It was patently obvious that his brain was working far faster than his mouth. He was trying to say things as fast as he was thinking of them, and in the effort to keep up, he appeared incoherent. I’ve done that a few times. It’s the same when you’re writing something–sometimes you make mistakes, trying to keep up with your thoughts.
I wasn’t aware of that. What a shame.
Is his idea that paying taxes is only for dumb people going to hurt him?
Anyway, he should be president.