US Presidential Debate 2016: Round 1 16 replies

  • 1
  • 2

Please wait...

c0mpliant VIP Member

50 XP

9th March 2003

0 Uploads

1,947 Posts

0 Threads

#1 2 years ago

Date: September 26, 2016 Host: Hofstra UniversityLocation: New York Moderator: Lester HoltHillary Clinton(D) Vs Donald Trump (R)

Topics of Debate

  • The Economy and Job Creation
  • Trade
  • The Federal Deficit
  • Race Relations and Policing
  • The War on Terror
  • The Foreign Policy of the United States



c0mpliant VIP Member

50 XP

9th March 2003

0 Uploads

1,947 Posts

0 Threads

#2 2 years ago

Personally speaking I think Clinton won that particular debate. She started off quite weak, for the first third I was quite worried. Then Trump started falling over himself and making some out and out wrong assertions including the fact that he never said that Climate Change was a hoax committed by the Chinese to sabotage American industry, that he didn't receive a $14 million dollar loan from his father, that he personally forced Obama to produce his birth cert, that he personally changed Clintons mind regarding TPP. 

Another bizarre one was his semi-admission that doesn't pay much federal tax and that he profited from the housing collapse




Emperor Benedictine

You can't fire me, I quit

55 XP

16th April 2005

0 Uploads

2,437 Posts

0 Threads

#3 2 years ago

What an anticlimax that was. Trump was absolutely humiliated after about the first 10 minutes or so. He looked like a struggling contestant on his own reality show. Even considering who we're talking about it's amazing he could be so underprepared and overwhelmed.

Of course, whether it makes any difference at all to the direction of the polls is its own interesting question.




Serio VIP Member

The Dane

149,931 XP

11th November 2006

3 Uploads

12,511 Posts

38 Threads

#4 2 years ago

He admits he doesn't pay much federal tax, and then he turns around and says NATO is bad because other members aren't paying their dues. He also outright lied on more than one point. He claimed he never supported the Iraq war, even though there's proof he did. He also claimed he never said climate change was created by the Chinese, which, again, is blatantly wrong with proof.

To a foreigner, Clinton came off as a politician whereas Trump just came off as a thug and a criminal trying to lie and threaten his way into office. There's no bloody way his behaviour would fly over here. Didn't he outright insult the moderator at one point?




Lord Rumpuss V VIP Member

Follow A Paranoid

186,730 XP

25th November 2006

0 Uploads

18,518 Posts

0 Threads

#5 2 years ago

Meh the only thing the debate shows is that Clinton has been part of the establishment for a good 3 decades now and is nowhere near being part of a solution but a big chunk of a problem.

To a foreigner, Clinton came off as a politician whereas Trump just came off as a thug and a criminal trying to lie and threaten his way into office. There's no bloody way his behaviour would fly over here. Didn't he outright insult the moderator at one point?

Depends on the foreigner if you ask me. I"m pretty sure the Haitians were hissing every time they saw  grandma's face.


Signature brought to you by Carl's Jr.



Schofield VIP Member

om :A

319,554 XP

24th October 2007

1 Uploads

30,539 Posts

0 Threads

#6 2 years ago

My favourite part of the debate was when she claimed to support democracy even though her campaign cheated against the Sanders campaign. 

That said, I think Donald Trump "won" the debate.  He was on the defence for most of it, but literally nothing she said could really stick to him, despite it mostly being true.




random_soldier1337

I live on Gaming Forums

452 XP

17th June 2008

0 Uploads

2,039 Posts

5 Threads

#7 2 years ago

One thing I still don't get is why vote at all if the line between the lesser of two evils is so invisible? Some people sound like they are just going to vote for somebody just to spite their opponent or some other trivial reason.

Not following the elections too closely and assuming these 2 are the only choices, why not simply abstain from voting? If nothing else, it'll show what people think of the candidates. It's got to count for something significant enough with regards to whomever wins. But that's probably wishful thinking on my part.

As far as my concerns go I know the US government hasn't been a notably great friend of any nation I know or care for (or maybe anyone for that matter). Hillary will probably continue the trend so I'm not particularly enthusiastic to see her as a POTUS. But I know Trump will probably cause WW3 if he gets into office. Hyperbole on my part but the point is I'm even less comfortable with him as POTUS, especially considering the rest of the world.




c0mpliant VIP Member

50 XP

9th March 2003

0 Uploads

1,947 Posts

0 Threads

#8 2 years ago

This election is something very unusual in which I don't think anyone should abstain. Personally speaking, Donald Trump is a massive danger to the United States and to the world at large. 

To use his own language, he's TREMENDOUSLY unpredictable. He holds grudges, he's quick to lash out at people and he doesn't have a level head on him. These are the things you don't want to have in a man charged with control of any military force. He talked about attacking an Iranian Navy vessel because some sailors slagged a passing US ship and then laughed it off as if it wouldn't cause a war. Those type of events DO lead to wars. Even if they don't lead to wars, how would that lead to a constructive atmosphere with the rest of the world. It will only isolate the United States internationally and reduce the ability of the US to do anything on the international stage. In terms of the risks to the world, the threat of nuclear war is still there, its never left us since the collapse of the USSR and shouldn't be ignored. What has prevented nuclear wars in the past has been level heads who were able to size up the situation and see alternative course of actions other than the obvious. All Trump knows is the obvious answers. Big, brashful and unapologetic. They aren't a good combination when playing nuclear chess on a three dimensional stage. 

Trump also poses a serious threat to democracy in the US. Authoritarian regimes don't announce themselves in many obvious ways prior to getting into power, but there are some warning signs. Let me tell you, talking about taking everyone of a certain religion and forcing them to have identification identifying them as said religion, putting them all on a list, and even deporting them, THAT isn't a warning sign. That is a neon sign flashing telling you what this guy is capable of. He's taking a whole section of society and declaring them the enemy. That is so incredibly dangerous and the fact that close to 50% of people in the states are willing to go along with that at the moment is terrifying.  

The polls are starting to come out and all of the polls that weren't gathered from online votes are showing Hillary winning, in some cases by a large margin. Even Bill O'Reilly is giving the debate to Clinton. I'll be very interesting to see how national and state polls will be affected by the debate.




random_soldier1337

I live on Gaming Forums

452 XP

17th June 2008

0 Uploads

2,039 Posts

5 Threads

#9 2 years ago

I'm well aware of how crazy he can be. "Why not use nukes since we have so many durr?" And so many other crazy things.

The idea that I was specifically talking about was this:

"c0mpliant"This election is something very unusual in which I don't think anyone should abstain. 

That is so incredibly dangerous and the fact that close to 50% of people in the states are willing to go along with that at the moment is terrifying.

People shouldn't abstain. But just because Clinton is in their eyes just as bad, if not worse, than Trump, they will simply vote for Trump. It doesn't seem all that different from people going along with him for short sighted personal gains that will surely result in catastrophe instead of the other choice which has the possibility of avoiding it.

The problem I am seeing is that if people do not like one, they will simply vote for the other, if they do not abstain. How does that help them? Why would they do that?




c0mpliant VIP Member

50 XP

9th March 2003

0 Uploads

1,947 Posts

0 Threads

#10 2 years ago

Because unfortunately the US doesn't operate PR-STV. If they did, people could vote for candidates by order of preference and if their preferred candidate isn't elected, their vote then goes to their next preferred candidate.

Its effectively a two party system. Third party candidates aren't usually on the ballot in every state, so that makes it even harder for them to win. For example, there are two main third party candidates. Johnson and Stein. Johnson is on the ballot in 49/50 states, while Stein is on the ballot in 42/50 states. They're also excluded from the televised debates. They have little to no national organisation and a handful of state level organisational networks. Realistically, they have no chance of winning or even getting 5% let alone 50%.

As someone who would consider myself a socialist, if I had to vote for Clinton I'd be annoyed, however in this case she is the lesser of two evils and if I don't vote for her, and there is a sizable portion of the populace, but not a majority, who think like me suddenly the potential vote for Clinton collapses and Trump is elected, not because he has a majority of the population on his side, but because he has the largest amount of support. He could win 40% and still win the election if Clinton gets 30%, Johnson gets 20% and Stein gets 10%.

You simply can't get EVERYONE to vote for a single candidate and so the risk of splitting the vote is huge. I'm reminded of a picture I saw of an old woman in France voting for Chirac over Le Pen even though she hated Chirac and to show he disapproval of the situation she voted while wearing black gloves




  • 1
  • 2