Trump looked really bad last night, IMO. When the discrimination lawsuit of 1973 was brought up. Not once did he say that the lawsuit was without merit, that they weren't being discriminatory. Instead it felt like he was saying we were able to settle it without admitting guilt because laws make it easy to do so. He basically admitted to not paying federal income taxes. If you are going to admit to that while cutting tax rates for the wealthy, you have to come back with saying you'll be closing the loopholes he took advantage of (not just one mention about carried interest from earlier in the debate). The Iraq War was a perfect time to hammer Hillary, but instead he spent his time saying how in unrecorded conversations that he was against the war. His status as a birther was brutal as well. He should have hit back once at Hillary for reports of her campaigns role in the movement and let the moderator move on. Finally, when talking about stamina (trying to deflect from his potentially sexist look remark), Hillary brings up her 11 hour Congressional testimony. Why not hit back at her about Benghazi?
I loved that he deflected by saying his Palm Beach Club didn't discriminate. "See, I have one business that doesn't discriminate! I'm awesome!"
You're assuming this matters. I think Trump did really well during the first 30 minutes. Content is sort of irrelevant - most people who really care about policy already have decided who they are voting for. It's the people who don't pay attention to the details that are mostly undecided, and he made a lot of powerful arguments in style there. He wilted as the debate went on there, though.
This is like how Ron Paul won every debate in 2012 because his crazies just went and voted in every online poll to prove it. Self-selected samples are worthless when determining winners of any sort.
All of those were self-serve polls. None of them are scientifically sound. Same types of polls that Ron Paul routinely won every debate, even when he barely spoke in some of them.
I don't know if anybody can stop income inequality at this point but at least the Democrats are trying to get the wealthiest people to pay up.
I think it is pretty clear to me his plan is to charge tariffs or taxes on manufactured goods being imported into this country. I agree the how he plans on getting anything done is a complete mystery.
Until the focus is on loopholes, rather than raising tax rates, they won't solve the problem (and I'm not saying rates don't need to increase on the super rich).
I think you are missing the (bolded) point. He was quite candid in his response - he wants to give companies incentives to REMAIN or EXPAND in the United States. What you are asking is in effect a red herring. There is nothing wrong with having manufacturing jobs remain here in the US. Having a NAFTA with every country is not a pre-requisite to "globalization". Clinton herself said she voted AGAINST CAFTA, yet the United States has great trade relations with Central American countries. If I recall correctly, there is no such NAFTA-equivalent with Japan, yet the United States does plenty of great business with Japan. So the idea that amending NAFTA or another trade agreement is akin to an attack on "globalization" or that it is a "protectionist" effort is just not a sophisticated argument. This is probably why Bernie Sanders was able to win a greater share of college educated voters during the Democratic primary. Speaking of Japan, who has a stagnant and soon-to-be declining population along with low immigration rate, they view their demography as an incentive to create further automation. Rather than solving our problems with cheaper labor, whether it be offshored labor or migrant labor here in the United States, we need to embrace the innovation, creativity, and entrepreneurship of our college graduates and veteran work-force members. I do fear that this kind of subtle nuance in Trump's policy will go over-the-head of many undecided voters, as it seems to be doing here to the members of this message board.
another mis-opportunity for the incoherent / fidgety 70-yr old never once did he bring up immigration nor the issue of "building a border wall and have Mexico to pay for it." i could see that he was coached not to bring up the Clinton Foundation, as Clinton can reference the fresh/new reporting on the many misdeeds of the Trump Foundation.
It seemed pretty clear to me that Trump's debate plan was to attack Washington/Hillary and interrupt Hillary during her two minute answers while offering no real solutions to anything. He points out everything that is wrong and makes claims on who is to blame. Yet, he leaves a giant mystery on exactly how he's going to go about solving any of the issues. He's just going to snap his fingers and magically re-create a whole new way of doing things in Washington. I thought it was a huge stretch for a man who has no political history to attack Hillary for her years of service to the country...actually blaming her for the way things are in many cases. His strategy of trying to make Hillary look bad via interruption, raising his voice, one-liner snapbacks, and facial smirks (aka Trumperisms) was a total failure in that debate. He did a better job at mocking himself like a SNL caricature than any other show or comedian could do. And, the whole time I'm watching this guy speak and lose his cool because he can't wait his turn to speak...I'm wondering how in the hell he can have meaningful talks with any world leaders or anyone for that matter if he is just going to talk down to them the whole time...because that is pretty much all he does. He knows everything and everyone else needs to get on his page...or else! Or else what? Or else nothing gets done. I think he's trying to sell us a sack of sh_t personally. He made the debates practically unwatchable because he lacked professionalism and seriousness. For a bit there, I was thinking Bill Clinton would get riled up enough to come on stage and sock him in the face. And, in his post-interview speech, he talked about holding back on Mr. Clinton's indiscretions to save Chelsea the embarrassment because he has a lot of respect for her...what does that topic have to do with anything at all? It's water under the bridge. Is Hillary going to take a cigar and do something? Who gives a flip about that, Donald? The debate did nothing to make me trust Trump more. I trust him much less. He looked ill-prepared and his attacking strategy worked against him imo. Clearly...he lost the debate and treaded water with attacks that felt personal versus political in many cases. He re-earned his reputation of being the bully in that one. I was looking for a smarter Trump...but got more bully Trump. Felt like I was watching him lecture interns on "Celebrity Apprentice" with the way he was talking. Wasted debate. Too bad.
Nobody watched this debate to see what Hilary has to say. Hilary is not going to get any new voters from any of these debates. People want to see what Trump has to say and see if there is any way they can vote for him. These debates are about Trump and Hilary's tactic of staying home is her best bet but she can't side step these debates. Too bad for her really because there is nothing for her to win in these debates. Arguing with an idiot will only make you look like an idiot and Trump has proven that is not a problem for him. They might as well open the debate playing "Let's talk about Trump Baby" because that is all they are doing. The whole thing is a bad Saturday Night Live skit.
That was an awful display by the drunk uncle - embarrassing to hear people even considering that narcissistic pig for President. The guy couldn't remember the question 2 seconds after starting to answer. Oh, and Cyber -yes we have to do better at cyber.....****ing idiot. DD
Making corporations have an AMT like the rest of us not-so-poor slobs would go a long way to making corporations pay their fair share.
Hillaries plan will not raise taxes on anyone making $250k or less.....Reagan's failed trickle down BS has nearly bankrupted our country. DD
LOL, so "Reagan's 'failed' trickle down BS" is what Obama and the Democrats were doing during his first term when he was packing on over a trillion dollars a year to the national debt? Interesting way of remembering things. Anyway, all talk of increased taxes is pointless unless you plan on cutting spending. If you raise spending and raise taxes, you've done nothing positive, you've just grown the size of government.
You misunderstand. I was responding to someone who claimed that "Reagan's failed trickle down BS has nearly bankrupted our country." Well, the real issue is out of control spending especially during the time where Obama was in the white house with Democrat control over the house and senate.....I didn't know they were really into Reaganomics....but that has to be the case given that I just saw someone blame Reagan's trickle down "BS"
