Trump / Clinton 2nd Presidential Debate

Anyone stay up to watch this?

Well the gloves were well and truly off. Trump really went for Hilary's throat and managed to divert the debate away from his misogynistic rantings and made her squirm like a worm on a hook.

He's an odious man, but, boy, is America angry. They're in the mood to do anything to payback the politicians for the mess they're in, and that might mean voting in Trump. God help us.

That's the conclusion I came to. (What do I know?) I wondered what other people thought?

Anyone stay up to watch this?

 

Well the gloves were well and truly off. Trump really went for Hilary's throat and managed to divert the debate away from his misogynistic rantings and made her squirm like a worm on a hook.

 

He's an odious man, but, boy, is America angry. They're in the mood to do anything to payback the politicians for the mess they're in, and that might mean voting in Trump. God help us.

 

That's the conclusion I came to. (What do I know?) I wondered what other people thought?

Clinton did not, she kept her narrative mostly about the country and policies.

For any American with two or more grey cells to rub together (which is a lot of them), she showed herself far more presidentiable than him.

The irony is that this will also have made her appear much more establishment, wherein it is the mass anti-establishment sentiment in the US which is currently carrying Trump (just like it is carrying others in other countries, including this here little kingdom).

In debating terms, I'd have called it a clear win for Clinton...but once the electorate is factored in, I'd call it a draw.

And considering what curveballs 2016 has thrown so far...I wouldn't be surprised to see Trump win, put it that way. People all over the world keep on falling for populist rethoric, and there's no end to it in sight.

Anyone stay up to watch this?

 

Well the gloves were well and truly off. Trump really went for Hilary's throat and managed to divert the debate away from his misogynistic rantings and made her squirm like a worm on a hook.

 

He's an odious man, but, boy, is America angry. They're in the mood to do anything to payback the politicians for the mess they're in, and that might mean voting in Trump. God help us.

 

That's the conclusion I came to. (What do I know?) I wondered what other people thought?

I think you have summed up the situation very well, but I don't think a Trump victory will be a disaster. Trump will get the best people to advise him and put highly competent people in positions of importance.

I think it will be a very close election.

I think you have summed up the situation very well, but I don't think a Trump victory will be a disaster. Trump will get the best people to advise him and put highly competent people in positions of importance.

 

I think it will be a very close election.

I'm unconvinced. I think he'll overrule is team of advisors and make an almighty mess. He's too stupid to understand how stupid he is.

I'm unconvinced. I think he'll overrule is team of advisors and make an almighty mess. He's too stupid to understand how stupid he is.

He's not stupid and he's not a politician.

I think you have summed up the situation very well, but I don't think a Trump victory will be a disaster. Trump will get the best people to advise him and put highly competent people in positions of importance.

Since when do politicians, whether inept or highly capable, put "highly competent" people anywhere near the top levers? There's no political advantage or gain to doing that.

He's not stupid and he's not a politician.

Then why does is appear to be stupid? He proposes things that are not remotely practical and seems uninformed in the extreme. I assumed that he did so because he's stupid, but he could instead be the biggest fattest liar in the history of the world. Is that better?

Then why does is appear to be stupid? He proposes things that are not remotely practical and seems uninformed in the extreme. I assumed that he did so because he's stupid, but he could instead be the biggest fattest liar in the history of the world. Is that better?

I don't think he's stupid, but I do think he is more in touch with the American zeitgiest than anyone else, hence his success.

Considering this anti-establishment mood seems to be percolating right around the globe, you'd think the more mainstream politicians would recognise it and do something to address it. They really don't seem to have a clue how deep the resentment goes.

I don't think he's stupid, but I do think he is more in touch with the American zeitgiest than anyone else, hence his success.

 

Considering this anti-establishment mood seems to be percolating right around the globe, you'd think the more mainstream politicians would recognise it and do something to address it. They really don't seem to have a clue how deep the resentment goes.

So mainstream politicians who know what they're doing should also put forward daft, impractical and damaging policies that look good?

The man has no policies. All he does is rubbish Obama and blame lots of stuff on Hilary. Stuff that I'm pretty sure is outside a senator's remit.

It was a shambles.

If he wins I'm pretty sure it will be a lame duck presidency.

Best quotes: 'I don't know anything about Russia.' And the epic, Islamaphobia is a 'shame.'

And he pretty much accused Bill Clinton of rape. Isn't there sworn testimony from Trump's ex-wife saying Trump raped her?

---------- Post added 10-10-2016 at 12:08 ----------

I don't think he's stupid, but I do think he is more in touch with the American zeitgiest than anyone else, hence his success.

 

Considering this anti-establishment mood seems to be percolating right around the globe, you'd think the more mainstream politicians would recognise it and do something to address it. They really don't seem to have a clue how deep the resentment goes.

You are an enigma Anna. You seem to praise Trump to some extent, and Farage. But claim to be a Corbyn fan?

 

You are an enigma Anna. You seem to praise Trump to some extent, and Farage. But claim to be a Corbyn fan?

Anna is a revolutionary. I don't think it matters to her how the revolution starts.

So mainstream politicians who know what they're doing should also put forward daft, impractical and damaging policies that look good?

For all the hullaballoo about Rudd's list policy idea and today's semi-about turn (foreigners' list would still get made, but now not be published)...a YouGov poll showed significant public support for it.

Objectively (and in no small part cynically), if it "works" politically, is there any policy which is too daft, impractical and damaging to put forward for the sake of gaining electorate support? I seem to recall Trump's foreign-paid, wall-building policy gaining him some non-trivial backing/support/momentum with US Joe Public.