Hilarious. Even Fox News has more negative Trump feedback after tonight than positive. Absolutely delusional.
Clinton typical answers is very lawyer like without emotion - which makes her look not very genuine in general. But there were times that I thought she looked quite genuine in this debate. She let go of her usual guard and let her emotion be seen when she talks about Trump's characters and not her policy or defending against an attack.
Debate is #rigged. I mean, did you see that question Chris Wallace lead in with for Trump? "You said several things that were not true sir". Wow. Basically Trump, you lied. Fox is in it for Clinton.
Education and knowledge is your friend. http://www.npr.org/2016/06/29/483688821/fact-check-donald-trump-and-the-victimization-of-u-s-steel Presumptive Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump traveled to the small city of Monessen, Pa., on Tuesday to speak about the impact of international trade on U.S. manufacturing jobs. As he has before, Trump launched a full-throated attack on globalization, pinning the blame on politicians he says have allowed the U.S. manufacturing base to get hollowed out. "We allowed foreign countries to subsidize their goods, devalue their currencies, violate their agreements and cheat in every way imaginable. And our politicians did nothing about it," he told the crowd. Those politicians include his Democratic rival and her husband, he said. "At the center of this catastrophe are two trade deals pushed by Bill and Hillary Clinton. First, the North American Free Trade Agreement, or the disaster called NAFTA. Second, China's entry into the World Trade Organization," he said. The location for Trump's speech was no accident: Monessen lies southeast of Pittsburgh in the Monongahela Valley. Although the area was once a major steel center, most of its mill jobs have long since disappeared, leaving the region much poorer than it once was. Although Trump's speech was about manufacturing jobs more broadly, he included steel among the industries that have fallen victim to the forces of globalization, dumping and politicians' neglect. He told the large crowd that if elected he will bring steel jobs back to the region. The Claim "The legacy of Pennsylvania steelworkers lives in the bridges, railways and skyscrapersthat make up our great American landscape. But our workers' loyalty — you know it better than anybody — was repaid with total betrayal." The Question Was Trump's take on the U.S. steel industry — that it has fallen victim to dumping, unfair trade pacts and self-serving politicians — accurate? The Short Answer The once-mighty U.S. steel business has been losing jobs since the early 1980s, but not because of NAFTA. Instead, steel has had trouble competing with foreign companies, some of which received government subsidies, and productivity increases meant the steel mills that remain need fewer workers. More recently, China's rapid, unprecedented expansion of its steel industry has driven prices down sharply. U.S. officials have sometimes fought back by imposing tariffs, but their efforts have been inconsistent. The Long Answer Starting with the recession of the early 1980s, the U.S. steel industry underwent a long, painful period of retrenchment. Giant steel plants in places like Pennsylvania and Indiana simply couldn't compete against newer, more efficient "minimills" popping up in the nonunion South, said Frank Giarratani, professor of economics at the University of Pittsburgh. The old-line companies also found themselves doing battle with steel producers from Europe and Asia, especially Japan, that were often subsidized by their governments and thus relatively protected from economic downturns, Giarratani said. Many U.S. plants were shuttered, replaced by smaller, specialty mills that tended to employ fewer people. "We lost employment in the steel industry because mills shut down, but we also lost employment in the steel industry because we could produce steel with many fewer workers," Giarratani said. These changes were underway long before the passage of NAFTA, which one industry group says has actually been good for business by opening up Canadian and Mexican markets. Kevin M. Dempsey, senior vice president and general counsel of the American Iron and Steel Institute, told the International Trade Commission last year: "NAFTA has largely been seen as a success for the North American steel industry, providing increased access to our two closest markets. It has resulted in strengthened North American manufacturing supply chains, especially with key groups like the North American automotive industry. In recent years, it has also resulted in increased U.S. steel exports and a positive U.S. trade balance in steel with Canada and Mexico." Trump is right about one thing: Dumping of low-cost steel by foreign countries, especially China, has hurt the industry, said Scott Paul, president of the American Alliance for Manufacturing. Since China was admitted to the World Trade Organization in 2001, its steel industry has grown enormously, allowing it to flood the global market with underpriced goods, he said. "What happened there was they went from, in 2003, having a steel industry of almost no consequence internationally to having more than 50 percent of the world capacity for steel," says Giarratani. "When I look at the challenges facing the American steel industry, the first three things that come to mind are China, China and China," Paul says. But Paul says Trump is hardly the only politician to sound the alarm about dumping by China, a concern also voiced by Clinton, Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders and GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney, among others. "I think there is very definitely steel dumping, and China is the best current example of it, but it's gone on for a long time, and we have been slow to react," Giarratani said.
I know, Trump supporters don't particularly care what Trump actually says and only care whether a candidate is "emotional", but the fact checkers have already reviewed the debate: http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/20...fact-checks-final-presidential-debate-n669866 https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...ims-by-trump-alleging-widespread-voter-fraud/ http://www.miamiherald.com/news/politics-government/election/article109342002.html http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...-o-meter-scorecard-first-presidential-debate/
It's good for you to find the positives in an otherwise horrifyingly bad night for your guy. That'll be important for you come Nov 9th.
I didn't criticize Trump for saying Hillary choked. In the context he used it in the first debate it was hilarious. I would never criticize that. Hillary explained that after the discussions before putting the no-fly zone in place Russian planes wouldn't be flying through the no-fly zone. Trump's criticism of her foundation was a point for Hillary because as she said, it's one of the top rated charities in existence, she was able to compare it to the Trump foundation, and as people look into it more because of Trump's comment it, they see there was no pay to play in those agreements. Or would you like to tell me what Saudi Arabia and Qatar received for donating to the Clinton foundation?
Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. Weird. Your favorite moment was Trump asking Hillary to give millions of dollars to countries that throw gays off to the tops of roofs and treat women horrible and kill Jews/Christians, instead of using that money to help children around the world? You'd rather Saudi Arabia and Qatar have that money instead of using it on charity? You have some truly weird priorities.
I honestly got a little choked up reading that... probably because a) it's an awesome, encouraging, respectful and eloquent gesture... done by a gentleman; b) I lament that we will not enjoy such a peaceful change of power this time around.
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">NY's hottest club is <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/NastyWoman?src=hash">#NastyWoman</a>. It has everything. Rigged Emmys. Bad hombres. Donald rejecting two centuries of American democracy.</p>— Stefon on 2016 (@StefonOn2016) <a href="">October 20, 2016</a></blockquote> <script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
The media is so rigged They are pushing the narritive that Trumps statements are 'disqualifying' by saying he won't commit to supporting Clinton and that it's 'unprecendanted' But three things I have an issue with over that 1. It isn't 'unprecendantes'. And it really hasn't even been very long since something similar happens. Al Gore didn't agree or support Bush winning 2. IF someone is caught red handed cheating an election, and don't misconstrue this as me saying Hillary is doing that, but if it is done and there is proof you shouldnt support the victor. There are questions about Hillarys ethics, whether or not it's supperficial or not, there are questions and so I would hold off on vocaliing support until after the election and no proof of cheating is shown 3. What is the point of saying you 'would' or 'would bot' do something. Both Kasich and Bush both lied to the American public. They said they would support their nominee and they backtracked. Maybe they had a valid reason to backtrack or maybe not but it goes to show that it's better to be honest and say you will wait before making a commitment. Might I add that Kasich and Bush haven't even received harsh critique for lying.. which is sad because Trump got critique for being truthful when he initially said he didn't know if he could support them.
Slight difference here. Gore did not question the outcome of the election until after the vote. And it was only the state of FL count, not the entire election. And yes he did support.
The two former Presidents like each other and work together on a few charitable events after leaving office. Much respect for Bush with that letter. Even the younger Bush had said he wouldn't second guess Obama military actions. I'm sure having going through it himself he understands what the President faces. These politicians might fight nail and tooth, but when it comes to it, when one side win, they let go and move on because ultimately, they are both on the same side. That's why Trump's comments on rigged election and not accepting the result has many Republicans, including his running mate, uncomfortable.
Context - Trump has been playing up this rigged election for weeks with absolutely no evidences other than conspiracy theories. So when he said he wait, it is not he standard "wait" that any politician would do, including Gore as you pointed out. Gore's action was pretty normal and people like that he let go and moved on. If Trump was in Gore's position, do you think he would move on? And his supporter would? Given the context of what Trump been playing up the last few weeks, the easy answer is NO.
