Evidence for God from Science

Since I know it will eventually happen, here is a thread to discuss the presidential debates, if so inclined.

My view of the first one:

As a Canadian I watched this debate as an interested outsider.
Debates don't typically win elections, they are more for the "drama seekers" since the candidates tend to be "preaching to their choir".
That said, I expected a seasoned politician like Hillary to do better, much better. That she didn't means that Trump, if smart, will only get better in further debates while Hillary, considering she had the experience going for her on this one, will probably remain the same.

The first thing that stood out to me, was the way Hillary kept closing her eyes. It seemed like something was wrong, or she was medicated.


The next thing was that they both acted like a couple of whiny brats.

I kept thinking that one of these two bozos is going to be the next president.

God help us!

Since I have no intention of voting for either Clinton or Trump, I wasn't planning on wasting 90 minutes of my life watching the debate.

But, my 20 something daughter came over and wanted to watch the debate, so I relented.
My daughter is pretty much disgusted by both candidates and she is planning not to vote, but her significant other is a Trump supporter.

After watching the debate her responses were something like...
She couldn't believe anyone would vote for Trump.
She was actually impressed with Hillary's knowledge of the issues and composure.
I think she's still planning on staying home on election day, but she said that if she were forced to choose between Trump and Clinton, she would choose Clinton.

My impressions...
I was looking to see if Trump demonstrated even the slightest evidence that he was even remotely competent to be President of the United States.
Not surprisingly for me Trump's performance confirmed (yet again) that Trump is profoundly and fundamentally unfit to be President.

I'm still planning to vote for Evan.

My .02

The debate did and will do what every debate does: harden the opinion people already have about their candidates. Clinton was in a no win situation. If people are truly undecided, it's not because they're trying to decide about her. It's because they are trying to decide about him. On that count, Trump did what he needed to do. He didn't have to be a policy whiz. He just needed to not go into a screaming rage. Sorry for anti-Trumpers, but that's the reality. And he didn't go into a screaming rage. It won't move the needle in the short term, but it will give people looking for an excuse to vote against Clinton a false-because to vote for him. That is to say, undecideds will, by and large, break in favor of Trump so long as he does more of what he did last night.

He did not win the debate. Clinton won on points. But it doesn't matter, because this election isn't, never was, and never will be about her. It is only about Trump. Can he be seen as a plausible enough alternative to Clinton. If so, he's elected. If not, she will be. So it doesn't matter if she wins. The question does he pass. And the only way not to pass is to fail. The only way to fail is to say or do something so unpresidential as to disqualify one from office. Trump didn't have that moment last night, as much as Clinton tried to prod him. By that measure, even in losing the debate, he won the war.

Trump will win the election, and last night was part of the reason why.

Wouldn't say Trump lost the debate. But as Jac says, it's all about the undecideds. For many, that will even be a decision whether to vote or not - those people certainly despise Clinton, but are trying to find a glimmer of a reason to vote for Trump. FAR too many people don't like Trump because of his aggressive NY style of combat - that is alien and offensive to them. They fail to realize that comes from the culture he grew up in, that he's long done business in. It's typical of people from his background to express themselves so.

I think the key for Trump to cinch the deal:

- Show how reasonable and thoughtful he can be in articulating his stances.

- Continue to attack as appropriate.

- Cut the sophomoric statements.

- List the glaring sins of Clinton, Inc.

- Highlight that these same long-discredited approaches in cities dominated by democrats/progressives have some of the worst debt, crime, insolvency, and how the poor and minorities amongst them have only continued to suffer from their brain-dead liberal policies.

- Continue to highlight the insane decisions (like the Iran deal) that the progressives have given us.

- Highlight the increase in aggressive behaviors of various entities (like Iran, ISIS, Russia) that progressive policies have only encouraged.

- Showcase that Hillary has demonized business while slopping at the trough of their monies and oh so cosy with Wall Street

- Educate her about how business and investment really works. How businesses over-regulated will simply go offshore. Or, people with money won't invest, won't grow or begin businesses, won't hire people. Kill their incentives to invest, their ability to make profits, they'll just sit on their money in other investments or banks.

- Admit, the wealthy should pay a greater share - and they already DO - but that you will never turn the economy or debt around by every greater taxation of the wealthy, and that those liking such policies for "sticking it to the man," are only being supportive of policies that are killing us economically. There simply are not enough wealthy to float the boats of an economy by heavily taxing it. Only simpletons believe that! He needs to emphasize that we need to BOOST business in healthy ways with smart policies. Clinton only knows government bureaucratic approaches that have miserably failed - he needs to make that contrast crystal clear!

- Super-emphasize that other countries of NATO need to pay their fair share of our help.

Despite it being two against one in this debate Trump did enough so that it did not hurt him and it actually helped him.

Jac3510 wrote:But it doesn't matter, because this election isn't, never was, and never will be about her.

As far as I am concerned this election is about her. I think electing her would be disastrous for the country and I will do everything I can to prevent this, even if it means voting for Trump. I am afraid Trump will make a bad president, but not as bad as Clinton.

puddleglum wrote:

Jac3510 wrote:But it doesn't matter, because this election isn't, never was, and never will be about her.

As far as I am concerned this election is about her. I think electing her would be disastrous for the country and I will do everything I can to prevent this, even if it means voting for Trump. I am afraid Trump will make a bad president, but not as bad as Clinton.

Then, don't take this the wrong way, the debate wasn't for you or your benefit. You didn't need the debate--you didn't even need a primary--to know you were voting against Clinton. So you are a decided. Nothing Clinton could say would satisfy you, and there's pretty much nothing Trump could do to lose your vote. I'm not fussing at your or say you are in the wrong for that. I'm saying that, when analyzing the debate and offering expectations as to what will happen as a result--you should keep that in mind.

This debate was, again, about undecideds and so about people who are undecided about Trump. No one is undecided about Clinton. If you have not decided to vote for her, then you have looked at Trump. You then are in one of three categorie: 1. you will vote for her because you hate Trump; 2. you will vote for Trump because he is a reasonable alternative to Clinton; or 3. you have not decided if you are in the first or second camp. This debate only matters to those in the third category.

Put differently, the ONLY people who matter are people who would be otherwise open to voting for a Democrat but know Clinton enough to know that they would prefer to vote for someone else. Of THOSE people, the only ones that matter are the ones who are trying to decide if Trump is an acceptable alternative.

No one else matters. Everyone else has already made up their minds. There are no other swing voters. All Trump has to do is show that he is a reasonable alternative, and those people who would otherwise be open to voting for a Democrat will have permission to do what they really want to do: vote against Clinton. It's a low bar for Trump. We just have to see if he can keep getting over it.

The problem that could easily have been overcome, by Trump, for those who are of a more conservative bent, who can't stand the Clintons, is his diarrea of the mouth with so many Sophomoric or easily misinterpreted statements and seemingly arrogant posturing. The reality is that his STYLE has been seriously off-putting to millions. He doesn't seem capable of making strong statements (like on immigration) without simultaneously voicing nuances to those people or things he is not addressing, but yet that his cartoon-like/sound-bite statements can easily be spun by the left. He's unnecessarily opened himself up to hostility by creating (hopefully false) negative perceptions that are not at all what he totally meant.

Women, particularly, are really irked by Trump's style, and can't see beyond it. They often think he is but a pompous ass. But anyone who has spent some time in the business world knows the realities of dealing with tough people, attorneys, those in power - whether in the private or government sectors. And so, (especially, older) leaders from business backgrounds often express themselves through very tough and direct language. They often aren't great at expressing nuances, as their FOCUS is often more what they are concerned with. And so, such people are easy to misinterpret.

But all that said, I don't think a guy like Trump, surrounded by servant employees, who is so aggressive, and has been so successful, is going to change the tactics that got him this far. Trump just has to be Trump! But he also grew up in NY - had a lot liberal influences. But I think he slowly realized that progressive policies weren't just bad for business, but bad for everyone. I think he saw public service as leaving a mark beyond just having created great wealth. Before, I'm betting he merely saw politicians, of both parties, more for what they could do for him on a business level - which explains his courting politicians of all stripes. But he likely also saw that progressive policies were really hurting America as well as business. And with the great recession, he saw the corrosion exponentially increase. So, he's grown into a far more conservative person.

puddleglum wrote:

Jac3510 wrote:But it doesn't matter, because this election isn't, never was, and never will be about her.

As far as I am concerned this election is about her. I think electing her would be disastrous for the country and I will do everything I can to prevent this, even if it means voting for Trump. I am afraid Trump will make a bad president, but not as bad as Clinton.

Hey puddleglum,

A lot of people I talk to seem to feel the same way that you do. It's a "Never Hillary" election.

It wasn't very entertaining. But wait for the next two debates. Trump and Hillary may not be used to the format (Trump seemed befuddled after the half-hour mark, and Hillary spoke in memorized paragraphs) so by next time or Vegas, they will be at each other's throats for sure.

puddleglum wrote:

Jac3510 wrote:But it doesn't matter, because this election isn't, never was, and never will be about her.

As far as I am concerned this election is about her. I think electing her would be disastrous for the country and I will do everything I can to prevent this, even if it means voting for Trump. I am afraid Trump will make a bad president, but not as bad as Clinton.

Why do people in your country see it as an either or, what about a third party?

I rarely vote for the two main parties in my country and we have a decent third party which is gaining ground and gaining seats. In fact there are probably a few parties that are doing this, a two party preferred system is crap.

Because it is an either/or, Dan. Either Trump will be president or Clinton will be president. That's just fact of the matter. There is no middle ground.

Danieltwotwenty wrote:

puddleglum wrote:

Jac3510 wrote:But it doesn't matter, because this election isn't, never was, and never will be about her.

As far as I am concerned this election is about her. I think electing her would be disastrous for the country and I will do everything I can to prevent this, even if it means voting for Trump. I am afraid Trump will make a bad president, but not as bad as Clinton.

Why do people in your country see it as an either or, what about a third party?

I rarely vote for the two main parties in my country and we have a decent third party which is gaining ground and gaining seats. In fact there are probably a few parties that are doing this, a two party preferred system is crap.

Dan,

It's an either/or, because either Clinton will win, or Trump. Nobody else has a chance to win.

Some people(DBowling this means you ), throw their vote away on a 3rd or 4th party candidate.