Trump was hurt by the two-way screen. No discipline. His face when HRC dropped the nuclear bomb line his expression was priceless, like he just sucked a lemon.
Just to start off with my hot take: if 100 million voters watched that, and Trump’s poll numbers go up (or even stay steady!) then I give up. :smack:
I think this may be the first time I’ve agreed with octopus, at least that I can recall. What is the counterargument for NATO countries not being expected to live up to their obligations, while still reaping the benefits of membership? Free ridership is not good.
I didn’t see her tonight, but I have seen her plenty of times before (I actually used to watch her years ago, back around Y2K, on a PBS panel show that was all women discussing politics). She is strong with the deflection power, fo sho. There was someone on Twitter talking about that, something like “you can NOT break her”.
The duplicitous and despicable way he talks about race is one of the few signs that he’s not as stupid as he seems. To add to what you are saying, one of his cleverest double messages is “your schools are no good, you have no jobs, your streets are a war zone”. As you say, to center-right suburban whites, this is “aww, he’s concerned about the plight of inner city minorities”. To the “alt-right”, this easily translates as “blacks are stupid, lazy criminals”.
CNN poll gives the debate to Hillary, 62% to 27%
From the 538 guys discussion of the devate:
Don’t forget the viewer breakdown is skewed as announced by CNN.
For the record - there is nothing in the actual North Atlantic Treaty regarding anyone’s financial obligations. The other nations can not be at fault for ignoring “obligations” which are not spelled out in the Treaty itself.
The actual text of the North Atlantic Treaty is here. It’s very short.
http://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/official_texts_17120.htm
There is nothing in that Treaty about any financial considerations or even what sort of levels of troops and equipment should be maintained. Suggesting that the other NATO members are not meeting their obligations is factually incorrect.
The actual funding process for NATO is described here:
http://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/topics_67655.htm
In 2014, the NATO members agreed that all countries would strive to set their defense spending at 2% of their GDP. At an event called the Welsh Summit, they pledged two things: First, that any country which was currently spending at the 2% mark would maintain that, and second, that any country that was below that mark would move to increase their spending within the next ten years.
Again - These are not obligations set out in the treaty. These are guidelines which the member countries agreed to at a recent meeting.
Countries that are not currently spending 2% of their GDP are not at fault for ignoring their obligations.
But you know what? Even if all the other members of NATO gave us the bird and told us to get the check - we, the United States, would still be obligated fully to honor the mutual defense agreement spelled out in Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty. That is our obligation, which we accepted and ratified, and even if everyone else abandons us - America has to stand by our obligations to our allies or else there will be no safety for anyone on this earth.
What I was saying is that Clinton won the debate, but didn’t beat the spread because the bar was much lower for Trump. That’s a statement about the electorate, not the candidate,
But I may have been wrong. The early polling seems to show that Hillary won decisively.
I agree that Trump was doing decently for the first 15 or 20 minutes, then fell apart (and glad I was that he did).
The one issue where I thought he had a question that Hillary had no answer for was his claim that when we ship products to Mexico, there’s a 15% tax, when they ship products here, there is no tax, and that’s due to NAFTA, and is a bad deal. Is that remotely true? Is it due to NAFTA? What’s he leaving out?
Also, at the end, he said something about 600 people who were supposed to be deported, but were made citizens instead, because someone pressed the wrong button. WTF was he going on about?
…and Michael Steele, former RNC chair, just calls the debate for Hillary.
Just another nail…
This-warning;pdf
The New York Times calls it for Hillary, but says she and Holt failed to call Trump out on lies, for instance, when he said crime was up in New York City-- actually it’s down.
They are calling it the “Hillary shimmy.” As expected, it is a GIF.
I thought it was weird but it seems that people like it.
I know I should watch, but I just can’t bring myself to. (Plus, I don’t watch TV at all these days anyway; any spare time I have, I’m either reading…or typing here!)
Grin! Thank’ee! I guessed his handlers would try to get him to do less of that, but it’s pretty much at the core of his personal style of delivery, and not easily changed.
According to Slate it’s part of the explanation as to how the Trumpian Economic plan is fair.
What actually happens is that most countries have a VAT (Value Added Tax) that is paid for stuff you buy locally but isn’t paid when you export the stuff to the U.S. (or other countries).
In other words: if you sell something in Mexico (regardless of where it comes from) it gets a VAT. If you sell it in the U.S., it doesn’t. Somehow (read the article, they don’t understand it either) the Trumpian team believes there is some kind of unfairness involved.
I get that part. What I didn’t understand is why you think he came off as a presidential contender. What exactly would have have had to do to not come off like one, in your estimation?
The U.S. doesn’t use VAT. We use sales tax.
I’m not sure how to compare the two. I would think that a VAT would need to be higher, but I don’t know that for sure.
Read the article. The thing they’re writing is that Border adjustability levels the field (stuff that enters the US doesn’t pay VAT either, but whatever local taxes there are in the US. In other words: whatever VAT is levvied in Mexico, stays in Mexico and doesn’t actually influence sales across the border).
Oops.
Yet another alleged lie turns out to be true.
Yeah this struck me immediately as wrong though I don’t know the specifics of Mexican taxes. Krugman on NYT confirmed that he was indeed wrong on this as well as on Chinese devaluation:
I think the first few answers on trade were the best part of the debate for Trump politically but in terms of substance he has no idea what he is talking about.