I declare this debate a win because my brother is no longer voting for Trump!
Did he say what convinced him?
"He is an idiot and not fit to be president. But the Clintons have done some terrible things. I won't be voting for president this year."
I asked him why he supported him in the first place, and he said he had hoped he would be socially liberal (abortion and gay marriage are legal), but fiscally more conservative.
"He is an idiot and not fit to be president. But the Clintons have done some terrible things. I won't be voting for president this year."
I asked him why he supported him in the first place, and he said he had hoped he would be socially liberal (abortion and gay marriage are legal), but fiscally more conservative.
On SCOTUS answer from HRC: I wonder if she sort of deliberately went way liberal with the litmus tests as a way to force the hand of Congressional Rs now on Garland.
On SCOTUS answer from HRC: I wonder if she sort of deliberately went way liberal with the litmus tests as a way to force the hand of Congressional Rs now on Garland.
Also, reporter from MSNBC says tomorrow's WaPo will report on back stage theatrics: Giuliani and Bannon wanted the four women they brought for the panel to sit in the family box, thus requiring that they pass and greet WJC. the head of the commission on debates said no way and they are ripshit pissed. Threatened to pull out of next debate. Commenters think since now that he rallied his base he'll WANT to debate. They basically say he did well enough to remain an albatross around the neck of the party.
Trump wanted to put Bill Clinton’s accusers in his family box. Debate officials said no. By Robert Costa, Dan Balz and Philip Rucker October 10 at 2:07 AM
ST. LOUIS — Donald Trump’s campaign sought to intimidate Hillary Clinton and embarrass her husband by seating women who have accused former president Bill Clinton of sexual abuse in the Trump family’s box at the presidential debate here Sunday night, according to four people involved in the discussions.
The campaign’s plan, which was closely held and unknown to several of Trump’s top aides, was thwarted just minutes before it could be executed when officials with the Commission on Presidential Debates intervened. The commission officials warned that, if the Trump campaign tried to seat the accusers in the elevated family box, security officers would remove the women, according to the people involved, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the discussions were confidential.
The gambit to give Bill Clinton’s accusers prime seats was devised by Trump campaign chief executive Stephen K. Bannon and Jared Kushner, the candidate’s son-in-law, and approved personally by Trump. The four women — three of whom have alleged Bill Clinton sexually assaulted or harassed them years ago — were to walk in the debate hall at the same time as the 42nd president and confront him in front of a national television audience.
“We were going to put the four women in the VIP box,” said former New York mayor Rudy Giuliani, who represents Trump in debate negotiations. “We had it all set. We wanted to have them shake hands with Bill, to see if Bill would shake hands with them.”
The four women —Paula Jones, Juanita Broaddrick, Kathleen Willey and Kathy Shelton – sat with other ticketed members of the audience. Bill Clinton long has denied their allegations.
Frank J. Fahrenkopf, the debate commission’s co-chairman and a former Republican National Committee chairman, caught wind of the plot on Sunday and immediately moved to put an end to it. Fahrenkopf tartly warned a Trump staffer that if the campaign tried to put the four women in the family box, security personnel would remove them, according to people with direct knowledge of the conversations.
“Fahrenkopf said, ‘no’ – verbally said ‘no,’ that ‘security would throw them out,’” Giuliani said.
That came shortly after commission officials told the Clinton campaign that they could not seat Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.) with Bill and Chelsea Clinton and her husband, Marc Mesvinsky, in the Clinton family box. The discussions continued up until the debate programming began.
After issuing his warning, Fahrenkopf and co-chairman Mike McCurry, a former Clinton White House press secretary, took the stage to make pre-debate announcements.
At that point, the co-chairmen were not certain whether the Trump campaign would abide by Fahrenkopf’s order. A Republican strategist later said that it was only when Fahrenkopf saw Giuliani leading the women to other seats that he knew the campaign had backed down.
Giuliani said Bannon kept pushing to have the women come out until three minutes before the debate began.
“But we pulled it because we were going to have a big incident on national TV,” Giuliani said. “Frank Fahrenkopf stopped us and we weren’t going to have a fight on national TV with the commission to start the debate.”
Bannon declined to comment late Sunday, but his role in coming up with the idea was confirmed by multiple Trump campaign advisers. Senior Clinton campaign officials said they were unaware of the Trump campaign’s plans to try to seat the women in the family box.
Giuliani was highly critical of Fahrenkopf in an interview after the debate Sunday and said the Trump campaign is considering asking for him to step aside before the third and final debate, scheduled for Sept. 19 in Las Vegas.
Giuliani said it was unfair that the commission allowed Mark Cuban, a billionaire Trump tormenter and Clinton surrogate, to sit in the front row, but would not permit Bill Clinton’s accusers to sit in Trump’s family box.
“In the first debate with Mark Cuban, Fahrenkopf said we’ll make a deal and everybody will [be able] to approve who’s in the shot and if it’s not family, they have a right to object and we have a right to object,” Giuliani said. “So we object. But 10 minutes before that debate he tells us he can’t do anything about Cuban sitting in the first row, that security can’t throw him out.”
Giuliani said that experience led them to believe the campaigns could control their seats.
However, the staging of the second debate differed from the first.
In St. Louis, family members sat in an elevated box, while in Hempstead, N.Y., they were seated in the front row with other attendees.
“The women were outraged,” Giuliani said. “They were in the holding room and ready to go. No one was pushing them. They volunteered. But I knew the minute we got pushback that we had gotten into their heads. [Hillary Clinton] was rattled. They were rattled.”
"So I have very clear views about what I want to see to tend to change the balance on the supreme court"
There is something about saying "I want" that stuck out and made me not like her. She continued to come off as negative towards the Senate. I thought that was one of her worst responses because the tone was rather negative and polarizing. She brought up roe v wade which probably didn't go well with my very prolife friends on fb that I have seen like posts against Trump this weekend. Clinton's supporters know she is strongly committed to pro-choice. I just thought she couldn't have answered the question differently.
My husband is a Republican and has slowly grown uninterested in Trump. He talks about voting for Clinton because it will be status quo, but he doesn't like Clinton.
Okay, I'm probably being very harsh here because I'm still fired up. So you want the Demcratic candidate who is currently forecasted to win to say she's she is is pro-choice in a less obvious way in order to win over the Republicans who elected Trump as their nominee? Because they don't like their nominee? If you don't like the policies and platform of the Democratic party as they stand, don't let your own party burn to the ground. And don't expect the other party to cater to your wishes when it does.
I would have been pissed if HRC answered the SCOTUS question without mentioning Roe v. Wade (and marriage equality). Those are top reasons many people are supporting her.
"So I have very clear views about what I want to see to tend to change the balance on the supreme court"
There is something about saying "I want" that stuck out and made me not like her. She continued to come off as negative towards the Senate. I thought that was one of her worst responses because the tone was rather negative and polarizing. She brought up roe v wade which probably didn't go well with my very prolife friends on fb that I have seen like posts against Trump this weekend. Clinton's supporters know she is strongly committed to pro-choice. I just thought she couldn't have answered the question differently.
My husband is a Republican and has slowly grown uninterested in Trump. He talks about voting for Clinton because it will be status quo, but he doesn't like Clinton.
But she is pro-choice. Is she just supposed to pretend otherwise to grab some votes? Or are you saying your pro-life friends have short memories and would have forgotten Clinton's position if she hadn't mentioned it?
I would have been pissed if HRC answered the SCOTUS question without mentioning Roe v. Wade (and marriage equality). Those are top reasons many people are supporting her.
Plus it wouldn't work no social conservative would buy it. As a socially liberal R yes it is one of the reasons I am voting for her (also Trump Is just a boil on the butt of humanity) so soft pedaling it is not a good stategy
I do think she missed the opportunity to gain voters by not responding at all when her treatment of the mistresses was brought up. I mean she didn't lose anyone by staying silent, but if she would have addressed that in a vulnerable way she would have destroyed Trump. And they wouldn't be able to use it against her in ads because it would just draw those suburban white women to her.
"So I have very clear views about what I want to see to tend to change the balance on the supreme court"
There is something about saying "I want" that stuck out and made me not like her. She continued to come off as negative towards the Senate. I thought that was one of her worst responses because the tone was rather negative and polarizing. She brought up roe v wade which probably didn't go well with my very prolife friends on fb that I have seen like posts against Trump this weekend. Clinton's supporters know she is strongly committed to pro-choice. I just thought she couldn't have answered the question differently.
My husband is a Republican and has slowly grown uninterested in Trump. He talks about voting for Clinton because it will be status quo, but he doesn't like Clinton.
But she is pro-choice. Is she just supposed to pretend otherwise to grab some votes? Or are you saying your pro-life friends have short memories and would have forgotten Clinton's position if she hadn't mentioned it?
She brought it up when she could have avoided it. She doesn't have to change her position at all.
On SCOTUS answer from HRC: I wonder if she sort of deliberately went way liberal with the litmus tests as a way to force the hand of Congressional Rs now on Garland.
I didn't think of this, but it seems very long-game Clinton. Well played.
"So I have very clear views about what I want to see to tend to change the balance on the supreme court"
There is something about saying "I want" that stuck out and made me not like her. She continued to come off as negative towards the Senate. I thought that was one of her worst responses because the tone was rather negative and polarizing. She brought up roe v wade which probably didn't go well with my very prolife friends on fb that I have seen like posts against Trump this weekend. Clinton's supporters know she is strongly committed to pro-choice. I just thought she couldn't have answered the question differently.
My husband is a Republican and has slowly grown uninterested in Trump. He talks about voting for Clinton because it will be status quo, but he doesn't like Clinton.
Okay, I'm probably being very harsh here because I'm still fired up. So you want the Demcratic candidate who is currently forecasted to win to say she's she is is pro-choice in a less obvious way in order to win over the Republicans who elected Trump as their nominee? Because they don't like their nominee? If you don't like the policies and platform of the Democratic party as they stand, don't let your own party burn to the ground. And don't expect the other party to cater to your wishes when it does.
I thought the candidates objective was to win. They tailor their message to appeal to voters. There are many Republicans that are looking to vote just for a sane candidate because they didn't vote for Trump in the primaries. Just come off as a sane candidate and tread lightly on touchy subjects.
I don't affiliate with a party, but I am much more liberal than conservative. Most people I know are Republicans though.
Post by WanderingWinoZ on Oct 10, 2016 6:17:30 GMT -5
The thing about MO, was I assume, from when HRC was running against BO.... WAY WAY old stuff.
FOLKS, we need to cirlce back to the stunt before the debate. I can't believe trump held a presser with those women. Good for the debate commis for not letting them in the family box. He & his campaign are using these women - can't believe they almost made them shake Bill's hand.
Okay, I'm probably being very harsh here because I'm still fired up. So you want the Demcratic candidate who is currently forecasted to win to say she's she is is pro-choice in a less obvious way in order to win over the Republicans who elected Trump as their nominee? Because they don't like their nominee? If you don't like the policies and platform of the Democratic party as they stand, don't let your own party burn to the ground. And don't expect the other party to cater to your wishes when it does.
I thought the candidates objective was to win. They tailor their message to appeal to voters. There are many Republicans that are looking to vote just for a sane candidate because they didn't vote for Trump in the primaries. Just come off as a sane candidate and tread lightly on touchy subjects.
I don't affiliate with a party, but I am much more liberal than conservative. Most people I know are Republicans though.
That is one of the biggest criticisms HRC has faced: that she only wants to win, so she tailors her message to appeal to voters. That she doesn't have principles, she has polls.
If she had neglected to mention Roe v. Wade, she would have played right into that stereotype. Progressives and former Berners would cry that she isn't really pro-choice, she's just trying to win and you can't really trust her so why not vote Jill Stein or some other BS. Trump would claim she isn't really a supporter of women. The GOP would float conspiracy theories about what kinds of justices she would REALLY appoint to SCOTUS.
And let's be clear: HRC doesn't actually NEED those Republican votes to win.
I can't stop thinking about his disaster of an answer on the sexual assault tape. Dismissive and then pivoted to ISIS. That in concert with his "hey look over there!" press conference stunt...he could have given cogent answers to every other question and I still would think he lost bigly.
I didn't watch the first debate but his whole tone and demeanor were so off putting - barely controlled anger, derisive, petty, and his answers were just word salad. Obviously I'm biased because I hate him but I truly don't know how he "won" to pundits. He was an idiot with a personal ax to grind, not a presidential candidate.
I thought she did well but not great. She remained posed and just laughed at him.
He of course had no cohesive thoughts and provided absolutely no policy background - his same old song and dance. I think he took a lot of cheap shots at her which she handled like the boss bitch she is.
I think he came across as unprepared. He treated it like a rally. Sure maybe his core supporters liked it. But the interrupting, the flat out rudeness, the hovering, the threat to jail her, etc....it was bad IMO.
Hillary seemed rattled but she still beat him when it came to policy and professionalism. She was rattling off facts and concrete policy positions in an impressive way.
The jail/special prosecutor thing is breathtakingly stupid and outrageous. Like in the moment I was very wtf but when it's played in a clip on its own he seems like a complete clown.
All of the instant polls say she won. She clearly knows what she's talking about so that helps.
I think because he didn't melt down the GOP is in a tougher spot which I find hilarious. If he had melted down, it'd be easier for more and more of them to try and walk away.
Kellyanne said he was just joking about the jail thing, guys!!
I can't stop thinking about his disaster of an answer on the sexual assault tape. Dismissive and then pivoted to ISIS. That in concert with his "hey look over there!" press conference stunt...he could have given cogent answers to every other question and I still would think he lost bigly.
I didn't watch the first debate but his whole tone and demeanor were so off putting - barely controlled anger, derisive, petty, and his answers were just word salad. Obviously I'm biased because I hate him but I truly don't know how he "won" to pundits. He was an idiot with a personal ax to grind, not a presidential candidate.
Exactly. Every response was "how can I spin this against Hillary" and not actually answering the question. And then it was just word vomit. He can't put a coherent paragraph together.
And it's all extremes. Everything is "a disaster/ worst thing ever" or it's "Tremendous/couldn't be better". There is never a middle ground.
The jail/special prosecutor thing is breathtakingly stupid and outrageous. Like in the moment I was very wtf but when it's played in a clip on its own he seems like a complete clown.
All of the instant polls say she won. She clearly knows what she's talking about so that helps.
I think because he didn't melt down the GOP is in a tougher spot which I find hilarious. If he had melted down, it'd be easier for more and more of them to try and walk away.
Kellyanne said he was just joking about the jail thing, guys!!
Again, she probably secretly hates her life and all of the bank pedaling she had to do for this ass clown. Her poor legs.
HRC did what she had to do and that was not obliterate him so he wouldn't quit this late in the game. She has a plan to win against *this* campaign and can't waste the money or man power to fight whatever campaign would take over.
Right now, she knows his base isn't moving away from him. She knows Rs are jumping off ship at rapid numbers. She needs to continue to keep her base and the people who refuse to vote Trump happy.
No bombshells. No answers that can be nit picked. If she's able to win more votes, awesome but it's not a need for her at this point.
I think she did a great job. I think he worked hard to improve on criticisms from the first debate and did a good job of hammering his batshit messages home. I still call that a Clinton win because she actually looks presidential.
I love love love that she said she is proud of her 30 years and listed some of her accomplishments. He has been pushing that message and she has been avoiding responding. I love how she did it. Her career should not be an insult.
I disagree. If she didn't maintain strong stances on these things she would piss off her loyal base. These positions are not news to anyone.
Do you think she needs to strongly state her views during the debate on these things to keep her supporters? I think she could have said things differently that would not have turned off people.
This is absolutely ridiculous. Everyone knows her stance. Had she lightened it for the debate she would be called a liar/flip-flopped. This is so infuriating. She can't win.
But she is pro-choice. Is she just supposed to pretend otherwise to grab some votes? Or are you saying your pro-life friends have short memories and would have forgotten Clinton's position if she hadn't mentioned it?
She brought it up when she could have avoided it. She doesn't have to change her position at all.
So again, your prolife friends have short memories? Her not talking about Roe v. Wade would have made them change their minds?
Yeah, I don't buy that. Even if Trump did a 180 at this debate I'm not going to conveniently forget he's a giant flaming asshole.