Trump vs Clinton Round 3. Probably the biggest debate ever.

[claig]

Oct 20th 2 am UK time.

Last chance for the Establishment to stop the Trump surge in the polls.
World leaders will be watching, Establishments will be tuning in on the edge of their seats in trepidation.

People will be laughing, diving into the popcorn and knocking back the alcohol.

Round 3. Rock'n'roll.

I've just finished watching most of the debate.

Quite funny when Trump goes, about Aleppo to the moderator:
"It's a catastrophe. Have you seen it? Have you seen it? Have you seen it?" with the most amazed expression.

I loved the amused look of the moderator, as if to say: "yes, we've all seen it, I'm glad you finally paid attention."

(and, unlike what Trump said, it hasn't "fallen". There's still fighting going on.)

Ok the vibe I'm getting from Clinton backers is that she won but he did much better than expected

WinchesterWoman, you were right with your #3 point above in the thread and I was wrong. I thought he would go scorched earth and lay it all out and attack and lay out all the truth. He didn't, he did reasonably well but not as competent as her, but as you said he way exceeded the low bar he had before he went in.

So maybe that will work. People are saying it was his best debate. He scored some points, on immigration, on the economy etc, but he lost on others where she looked more knowledgeable and competent.

His pre-debate play was a waste of time because he wasn't there, so it didn't get maximum publicity.

The other option:
The family of Mr Oladipo Olowo Trump of Ogun state Nigeria, and the family of Chief Nwosu Hillary Clinton of Umuahia, Abia state, wish to invite you for the Igbankwu (Traditional ) Wedding ceremony of their children Donald Opiaka-n'otu Trump, and Hillary Adaeze Clinton.. At UmuAmerica.

I don't think he won on immigration or the economy at all.

Hillary made him look like a fool on trying to expel all illegal immigrants and pulled him up on previously (currently?) using illegal immigrants to build his towers.

She also pulled him up on how most people (experts) think his economic "plans" are not realistic.

'I don't think he won on immigration or the economy at all. '

Yes, because you support Hillary. But for undecideds who want jobs etc, those are his strong points and he emphasised them again and said she wanted "open borders" and had created hardly any jobs and doesn't know how to.

He said that Bill Clinton's NAFTA was the worst deal ever signed in America and he will renegotiate it or scrap it and bring jobs back. She has no answer because she is the Wall Street globalist candidate with her "gold standard" TPP free trade deals, even though she says she is now against it. Everyone knows she is for Wall Street and is funded by them and Trump isn't.

imo, neither of them had clear disasters or victories in any of the debates - Trump just lived down to expectations.
Hence, I doubt the debates persuaded many voters either way - the revelations between the debates would have much more effect.

"Hillary Clinton is Wall Street’s preferred candidate: Financial execs pouring millions into her campaign to defeat Trump"

www.salon.com/2016/05/09/hillary_clinton_is_wall_streets_preferred_candidate_financial_execs_pouring_millions_into_her_campaign_to_defeat_trum/

stupid people who think their opinions count as much as those of people who actually know what they are talking about

Mistigirl - are you a Labour voter, by any chance? I know several whizzkids who also believe that ordinary people are too stupid to have the vote (I wonder where they get that from?). Given that human intelligence is normally distributed (meaning that most of us are of equal intelligence), I find beliefs such as this one very hard to understand. If you are unhappy with voting behaviour, the answer surely lies in better education of the population (which is what social media is doing right now), not taking the vote away from them on account of their stupidity. You are incorrect in your assumptions.

But for undecideds who want jobs etc, those are his strong points and he emphasised them again and said she wanted "open borders" and had created hardly any jobs and doesn't know how to.

She clarified the open boarders were about energy trading.

In any case, she emphasised several times that she is for regulation of immigration and previous checks. But she is also for facilitating the legalisation of those already in the US, with children there, instead of splitting up the families and that have been paying federal taxes (unlike Trump...). You cannot say that he won there.

He can't also claim that she didn't create jobs or knows how to, as she was not involved in the economy while in government, nor had any executive role in the Senate, nor a role that could make decisions by herself, just vote.
It would be like claiming that he didn't know how to lead the Armed Forces, because he has never had that opportunity.
As for trades under Bill Clinton, the economy didn't suffer then as it did in the aftermath of George W, with the deregulation of Wall Street.
She pointed out clearly that Obama had brought the US back from a very bad place, and that she intended to consolidate the economy and improve on it.
Again, she pointed out that his economy plans were NOT realistic. Not according to her, but several experts.

She also pointed out how, throughout her career, she has mostly been concerned with working for people, while Trump has been concerned with amassing a fortune for himself.

I'm surprised nobody asked him about his financial interests abroad. That would have been a major blow for him, I think.

What Mistigri was saying was that some people are so stupid that they think their uninformed opinions carry the same weight as those of experts who have spent their lives studying a subject.

A typical example will be a climate researcher who says the world is getting warmer after studying the data thoroughly, vs someone who decides it's wrong and shouts to the world that Global Warming is not happening.

Those people exist and I'm fed up with them as well.

'She clarified the open boarders were about energy trading. '

She thinks the public were born yesterday. The speech to the Brazilian bankers about her "dream" of "my dream is a hemispheric common market, with open trade and open borders" is about much more than energy. The bankers are interested in much more than energy and energy doesn't walk across an "open border".

'He can't also claim that she didn't create jobs or knows how to, as she was not involved in the economy while in government, nor had any executive role in the Senate'

She promised to create 200,000 jobs in New York when she was Senator

"Hillary Clinton’s claim that she would create 200,000 new jobs in upstate New York during the recession of the early 2000’s didn’t even come close to fruition. as The Washington Post reports. Not only that, but some of the projects she championed were beneficial to donors to her campaigns."

www.dailywire.com/news/8189/hillarys-senatorial-claim-create-200000-jobs-hank-berrien#

"Donald Trump vs Hillary Clinton: the swing voters left behind in Ohio "

Channel 4 News report

The metropolitan media will not be able to swing the election in the end.

Regardless, the conditions are not currently met for open borders, if they will ever be. She said it was a dream, which I think we can all agree that it tends to be an utopia. And she has voted in favour of border control. I do think actions speak louder than words and if anyone should doubt her, it should be the brazilian bankers, I suspect. :)

The working class and Trump vs the Brazilian bankers, Wall Street, the hedge funds and "open borders" Hillary

She couldn't really promise to create jobs in a specific state as a Senator. That was her mistake then. But there's a long tradition of politicians to make promises that they won't or can't keep.

Still, "In March 2001, Clinton brought seven bills to stimulate the upstate economy before the Senate; none of them passed." I'm sure it didn't help that the Senate had a Republican majority then.

You do realise that Trump's promises and claims for jobs creation are even more unrealistic, though?

When exactly has Trump been on the side of the working class (or any people) with actions, rather than words?

He's discriminated against black employers.
He's built for the rich.
He's used illegal immigrants, rather than pay fair salaries.
He's sent his manufacturing abroad.
He's used Chinese steel.
For what? Larger profit margins.

I haven't seen it all- did Trump destroy Clinton with lots of shocking stuff from Wikileaks? Or, as I suspect, did he not?

Wikileaks was mentioned, but Hillary seized upon that to start the debate around the interference in the election and hacking by foreign governments, leaving The Don to defend himself about his relationship with Putin.

Mistigirl - are you a Labour voter, by any chance?

Nope. Are you a Ukip voter?

People are entitled to their own opinions, even where those opinions are incompatible with political, economic or physical realities, and they are entitled to express those opinions at the ballot box.

OTOH, I profoundly disagree that all opinions should be respected equally. No one should be compelled to treat stupid opinions as if they are rational.

Are you a Ukip voter?
Nope. And I agree entirely with this: I profoundly disagree that all opinions should be respected equally.

There's a problem of relativism here. Whose 'bottom line' is the correct version?

What no-one seems to be commenting on is this: if he's saying a) he's not going to necessarily respect the result of the election and b) if he does win he's going to lock HC up (the implication being that he would bypass the legal process to do so) what's to stop him c) abolishing term limits if he does become president? He seems to like the dictatorial style of government rather than democracy.

I don't think HC is a great candidate but this guy really is beyond belief.

I bet everyone's wishing they could have 4 more years of Obama right about now.

There's a problem of relativism here. Whose 'bottom line' is the correct version?

Relativism is of limited use when applied to real world problems. The global warming example given above is a good one. There may be some room for useful divergence of opinion between experts, for example on the precise value of climate sensitivity (which is not yet known with precision, although an absolute value does of course exist), but there is no room for debate between experts and non-experts over whether CO2 is a greenhouse gas or not. You can't argue with physics.

Equally, there may be some room for debate in certain essentially political fields - eg the Citizens United question, or on the extent to which free speech should be permitted (cf the different approach to this in the US vs the UK). OTOH where opinions have real world consequences, holding opinions which are contrary to facts can't be justified on grounds of "relativism". You are entitled to your own opinions but not your own facts.