Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 AndrewC wrote:
Trump shut up and answer the question. Will you accept the outcome of the vote?

He says yes, in the last second after spending all his time implying he could only lose to people making mistakes or corruption. Classy.

I have to say that I enjoyed that.

Odds, the mods are now debating how negative it was and they were surprised the handshaking went. I mean, did they not see the GOP primary? I mean, look at how Donald and Jeb!, or Rubio went.

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
So apparently the countries we protect out of our own interest should be paying us.

The UK paid our dues we sent you Peirs Morgan

 LordofHats wrote:

 AndrewC wrote:
Trump shut up and answer the question. Will you accept the outcome of the vote?

He says yes, in the last second after spending all his time implying he could only lose to people making mistakes or corruption. Classy.

Well, he's got a pretty good track record of accepting the results of fair and open elections.

Both sides basically trod water. Clinton kept to her fairly minimalist campaign strategy, not giving any ammunition, working to maintain her coalition of various voter groups. Trump played with much bluster, made bigger statements. He threw out a lot more ammunition for Clinton to use in ads, but that won't hurt Trump because really, how much more ammunition could Clinton have than she's already got, and it isn't really helping her so far.

The big missed opportunity came when Trump starting rambling on computer security. Talking about good his son was with computers. Clinton should have countered with disbelief at such a ridiculous non-answer, and told Trump running the country is serious business. That could have given her her moment to show him as a hopelessly unprepared, small time grifter. Opportunity lost.

 WrentheFaceless wrote:
So Trump's plan to solve our debt is to basically turn the US military into a mercenary organization?

A protection racket, basically. The US will provide protection as long as you pay. If you don't pay, then the US might invade and take your natural resources.

It's really just the most extraordinary thing to hear coming out of a presidential candidate.

It's really the big lesson from this whole campaign - how incredibly horrible, stupid things can be said and almost immediately be normalised, and become an accepted thing.

Well, in my foreign opinion, I think Hillary won that. She had more substance in her responses and I think she also managed to hit Trump harder on his responses than he did her.

She also seemed to get positive reactions from the studio audience more often which could translate into getting better reactions from people watching.

It went about how I thought it would. I think she did better, and he didn't implode - at this point he's not going to implode. The primaries hardened him past that.

Yup... Hil won easily.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Trump didn't explode? Did we watch the same thing? He was a ranting mess!

But now we need to see if the overall american public agreed and whether that will actually affect the polls.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 whembly wrote:

Trump didn't explode? Did we watch the same thing? He was a ranting mess!

I don't know, I think he was sticking pretty close to his script on the issues which could really turn people against him.

He was pretty restrained in the race question, apart from the hard on for unconstitutional laws. He didn't really dissolve into the stream of racism and ranting about his wall that I expected. If he had gone full racist there, then that could have been a turn off for undecided voters who hadn't previously actually seen him ranting about it in person.

Nah he came off as a man child yelling no and not true in the middle of her speaking. I wouldn't call it a impolsion but he seemed like a child yelling when he was called out for being a liar

 whembly wrote:
Yup... Hil won easily.

Trump didn't explode? Did we watch the same thing? He was a ranting mess!

I think if you had to award it on points it went to Clinton, but marginally, and not by enough that it will affect polling.

I mean, yeah, if we actually listen to Trump's answers then they obviously made no sense, but I don't think that matters. If making zero sense was an electoral problem, then Trump wouldn't be on that stage in the first place. The only way the debate will matter is if you can actually land a serious hit or two, and that didn't happen.

 AndrewC wrote:
Trump shut up and answer the question. Will you accept the outcome of the vote?

What is the alternative? Trump declaring himself the President?

How many more of these debates are due?

 sebster wrote:

 whembly wrote:
Yup... Hil won easily.

Trump didn't explode? Did we watch the same thing? He was a ranting mess!

I think if you had to award it on points it went to Clinton, but marginally, and not by enough that it will affect polling.

I mean, yeah, if we actually listen to Trump's answers then they obviously made no sense, but I don't think that matters. If making zero sense was an electoral problem, then Trump wouldn't be on that stage in the first place. The only way the debate will matter is if you can actually land a serious hit or two, and that didn't happen.

The dude went to "take their oil" schitck. I think we all know what he meant... (secure it, not outright own it). But, jeebus that horribad.

Then, his fight over whether he supported the Iraq war. That was unnecessary and he really didn't need to do that since he was a private citizen w/o any access to briefings/intelligence.

I don't htink Hillary hurt herself at all.

EDIT: but, then again... I'm really imbibed now... so there is that.
\_(ツ)_/¯


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 AndrewC wrote:
How many more of these debates are due?

2 more Prezzie debate and 1 VP debate.

 Ouze wrote:
I'm clear why the argument that Trump supported the Iraq war, theoretically, is a huge hit against his judgement when he's literally standing 20 feet from some who actually voted for the war as a senator! He was some private citizen, what difference does it make?

Because he's told lies about it, claiming he was against the war by citing a GQ interview in which he came out against the war a year after it started. The only evidence of his opinion before the war started is from from The Howard Stern Show, where he gave half hearted, kind of disinterested support for the war.

Now he claims he was always against the war, and he's got Sean Hannity saying it's totally true you guys. It makes me wonder is Hannity will also state on the record that Trump's hand are of an above average size.

Anyway, the whole took on more importance because of the Matt Lauer interview farce, where he challenged and repeated Clinton on the email thing repeatedly, but just accepted Trump's claim that he was on record as being against the war at face value.

Ultimately, it's about Trump shooting himself in the foot, because as you say Clinton actually voted for the war, and it should be a major mark against her. It certainly cost her in 2008. But instead Trump overplayed his hand, told a lie, and made the issue about his position, not her's.

I think that there was a great deal of restraint on the Clinton side, as has been said elsewhere, you can't win a war in the first battle, but you can certainly lose it.

Trump has a chance to regroup but the next one... the gloves will be off on that one.

Stolen from twitter...

TRUMP: I--
HANNITY: It's okay.
TRUMP: She--
HANNITY: C'mere.
TRUMP: (sniffle)
HANNITY: C'mere.
(fabric rustle)
TRUMP: (sob)
HANNITY: Shhh




G'night ya'll.

The Trump twitter machine is already working to try and discredit the debate:

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Eauthor

 whembly wrote:
The dude went to "take their oil" schitck. I think we all know what he meant... (secure it, not outright own it).

He's talked about taking the oil in the context of paying for the war, and in the context of the federal deficit and the trade deficit. I really think he means taking the oil, selling it and taking the money.

It's not a real policy, of course. I don't know whether Trump believes it or not, but even if he does it doesn't matter. It's a piece of nonsense that simply could not get past the State Dept and Dept of Defense. It's really just a bit of strong man positioning.

Then, his fight over whether he supported the Iraq war. That was unnecessary and he really didn't need to do that since he was a private citizen w/o any access to briefings/intelligence.

I don't htink Hillary hurt herself at all.

I agree that Clinton didn't hurt herself, and basically skated past her weakest points (Iraq war, emails). Trump did an okay job with creating new blather speak to cover up many of his worst position (talk to Sean is a new one). But mostly both sides traded jabs, and maybe Clinton landed a couple, and Trump managed to punch himself once or twice.

But there was no knockout blow, and ultimately debates aren't awards on points. Either there's a knock down hit, or there isn't. And there wasn't tonight. With the way polls are going, that only helps Trump.

EDIT: but, then again... I'm really imbibed now... so there is that.
\_(ツ)_/¯

Drunk whembly doesn't hate Clinton so much as sober whembly. Today we've learned something

I'm impressed you can do the shrug ascii thing when drunk. I can't do that thing when I'm sober.

 sebster wrote:

 whembly wrote:

EDIT: but, then again... I'm really imbibed now... so there is that.
\_(ツ)_/¯

Drunk whembly doesn't hate Clinton so much as sober whembly. Today we've learned something

I'm impressed you can do the shrug ascii thing when drunk. I can't do that thing when I'm sober.

Drunk whembly is a happy drunk it seems.

So... if we get Whembly drunk enough on election day, he may vote for Clinton....

 A Town Called Malus wrote:
So... if we get Whembly drunk enough on election day, he may vote for Clinton....

I think we may kill the man before that happens

 sebster wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:
So... if we get Whembly drunk enough on election day, he may vote for Clinton....

I think we may kill the man before that happens

But would a dead Whembly still be able to continue beating a dead horse? I'm thinking so...

I will agree with him on one thing. It's time for a drink. Jefferson's 'Ocean' Bourbon, methinks.

Goodnight all, getting a decent nights sleep for reading all the editorials tomorrow.

Cheers

Andrew

 sebster wrote:

 WrentheFaceless wrote:
So Trump's plan to solve our debt is to basically turn the US military into a mercenary organization?

A protection racket, basically. The US will provide protection as long as you pay. If you don't pay, then the US might invade and take your natural resources.

It's really just the most extraordinary thing to hear coming out of a presidential candidate.

It's really the big lesson from this whole campaign - how incredibly horrible, stupid things can be said and almost immediately be normalised, and become an accepted thing.

As crazy as it sounds to actually hear it from a candidates mouth, its pretty much been unspoken american policy for as long as I remember. What with knocking off the gulf states rival dictators and uncorking the power bottle neck that let radical islam bubble out.

 Dropbear Victim wrote:
As crazy as it sounds to actually hear it from a candidates mouth, its pretty much been unspoken american policy for as long as I remember. What with knocking off the gulf states rival dictators and uncorking the power bottle neck that let radical islam bubble out.

Dicking around in other countries is a constant of US foreign policy. Toppling governments and the taking the natural resources of those countries most fething certainly is not.

I imagine this fits due to it being a direct parody of the US election, I unleashed this at a doll show on the weekend.
No one believed me when I said I would.
And I did.

Lot of anti Trump people, though everyone liked the idea.
Of course I never mentioned I am a pro-Trump person, would have added conflict.

sirlynchmob wrote:

 AndrewC wrote:
The USA defends Germany? Merkel may want a word. I thought Japan was prohibited from having an army by the USA. So the USA is unhappy that Japan cant defend itself.

that ended a few years ago, I think on the 50th anniversary. so japan can now and does have a military again. We like those bases there because we can keep a large force in the vicinity of hot spots.

But just because they might be legally allowed(though their constitution still has major blocks toward it) doesn't mean they really can. When you have had generations of non-armament it results in mindset that's heavily AGAINST military.

USA by disarming Japan and maintaining that for generations has made it so that it's extremely hard for Japan goverment to boost military strength significantly due to it being extremely unpopular just as USA goverment has to step lightly around certain subjects as trying to mess there will result in not being in charge of things for long.

The Japanese actually have fairly large and well equipped army, navy and air force, but they are not called by that name.

The constitution of Japan prevents its armed forces from being used for offensive operations. Prime Minister Abe has led a movement to amend the constitution to allow wider use of them.