Home | About | Donate

Does Anyone Know Who Really Won That Debate?


#1

Does Anyone Know Who Really Won That Debate?

Rick Salutin

I watched Monday’s debate and by the end had no idea who “won.”

It seemed to me Clinton was often arch, artificial and embarrassing: “I think Donald just criticized me for preparing for this debate. And I did. You know what else I prepared for? ... to be president.”

Trump was his usual moronic self but looked calm and made some decent, mildly outside-the-box points: on trade, on U.S. policy being responsible for the rise of Daesh, and about Clinton having experience but it’s the bad kind. (She still reveres Henry Kissinger, which nearly made Bernie Sanders retch.)


#3

Working within the oligarchy designed system of representative government means it always wins and we always lose.

If its not direct, its not democracy.


#4

So once again the oligarchy (1%) won and the people (99%) lost?


#5

Its the fox making the rules for the chickens.


#6

Salutin is spot on when he says that a Clinton presidency will just pave the way for another Trump. A Clinton presidency will do nothing to solve all the many problems this country faces at a time when this country needs real, substantive and dramatic change. Clinton's incremental change is nothing more than dressing up the same old rotten status quo product in a new wrapper. It's a death sentence for any real change and a death sentence for those who need help the most.


#7

(With apologies to the Chicago Transit authority)

"Does Anyone Know Who Really Won That Debate?"

Does anybody really care?
If so I can't imagine why,
We've all got time enough to die


#8

Clinton isn't the problem, she has a progressive agenda and enough knowledge of federal government to make it effective. The problem is at the end of Pennsylvania Avenue, the US Congress, or more specifically the Republican-controlled House and Senate. Since 1964 when the Republican nominee was Barry Goldwater, the Republican Party has continued to drift toward what Goldwater represented and even perhaps further right. In the 1990s we had the Gingrich clones and now we have the Tea Party. Its nominee is associated with the white supremacist Alt-right. Most of the country thought Clinton won the debate by a large margin. Just about every poll showed a margin of 30-40%. Trump gave probably the worst performance in presidential debate history. His view of the US is extremely dark and does not reflect reality except in some of the most run-down corners of the country. Clinton set traps and Trump walked into them proving once again he does not have the temperament to be president. The Alicia Machado trap sent him reeling for days. He seems to have little interest in the country but great interest in his reputation. More than anything he does not want his "brand" damaged and is willing fight to protect it even if it reveals him to be not mentally fit to be in the Oval Office.


#9

You're on the real point, Tim, and not because of dying. It's because the debates don't determine anything. They're supposed to be about learning, not winning and losing. Typically American, though, we turn them into substitutes for combat. And here we have a Canadian putting our system of voting for the executive (even if diverted through the Electoral College, which is more like electing members of Parliament, but we pretend) up against an actual parliamentary system.

As to learning to think? Yeah, it's about learning, practicing, not being taught. But the parallel to how we look at debates in the Presidential election is that the testing culture of education has turned our attention to performance, not actual learning. Kids parrot back the answers provided to them instead of learning to use the information they've gathered.

That's what I ask about the debate: "What did we learn tonight?" And especially when every debate ends in a "spin room," I'm afraid the answer will always be "nothing much."


#11

Don't know who won, but I do know who the losers are if either of these losers becomes president -- us.


#12

Now we may know why this year's crap "The Good Guys" got that title.The environmentalist was found in the wrong place at the wrong time. A local Greenpeace office was found opposing a river restoration project, the unintended outcome, a veiled misdirection backfired. Sort of like the recent Dakota homelands desecration of ceremonial burial grounds, but the river was saved, not bulldozed. Cries.


#15

I actually find the notion that DJT's most important factor is his preference for business accommodation of Putin totally bizarre. HRC knows much better than to start a hot war with the likes of Russia, which would restore them to superpower status in the world. And if you Canadians really think there's another Trump in our wings, you've been watching too much of our TV and taking it for actual reality.

The real US antiwar agenda lies with the progressives and the young who were led into this election cycle by Bernie Sanders. That's what will swell in 2017, along with major reform of our electoral processes.


#19

What we Sanders supporters have in common with Trump supporters has nothing to do with warmaking, and we understand that very well. I don't know where you're coming from to lecture Americans on how to understand our own culture and politics, but Putin is not, never was a "good guy." Yes, I know about the mistakes we've made in the ME, but the difference is that we are not historically an authoritarian culture. The LA Review of Books last week published an excellent article by Diane Winston of USC tracing our susceptibility to the likes of DJT back to Reagan: https://lareviewofbooks.org/article/sin-evil-world-reagan-trump-news-media/, but this is not the same as Russian susceptibility to a Putin.

Seriously, you have not only me but every USAmerican I know wrong. Please don't try to tell us what we do or should think. You sound like one of those Trump promoters CD is warning about.


#20

Jeremy Brecher to Congressman Bernie Sanders, 1999. In a thread about last week, I don't know where you get off calling me a liar (yes, I know what "mendacious" means. Let's get back on topic, eh?


#21

Clinton's 2 superpacs: Correct the Record and Priorities USA Action, the propagandist arms of her campaign, are so exceedingly well-funded, by millionaires and billionaires, that she basically controls the output of the liberal elite media. The day after the debate, they all produced similarly worded accolades to her debate performance. One has to search deeply to find the truth.


#22

One has only to watch for oneself. Some of it is hard to distort.


#23

So you already giving Clinton an out?

She will be elected, it will be business as usual and nothing will change but that will all be the fault of the Republicans.

Interesting. In other words people should vote Green as voting Clinton will make no difference.


#24

They tell us only what they want us to know.
What they keep hidden is what needs to be revealed.
Chloe1 is right to say that we must search deeply to find the truth.


#26

That's how it works best for the those at the top: establishment democrat prez and obstructionist congress. Nothing changes and why should it? It's working pretty damn well for those in charge. Vote Green and shake things up.


#27

Per the pundits, Clinton hasn't lost a debate in this election cycle.

Per the online polls she hasn't won one.

Which is it?

Personally, I think Jill Stein would mop the floor with both Hillary and Donald in a debate, but while Trump might be better with troublesome stains, Clinton would pick up more dirt.

Vote Sane: Vote Green.


#28

You are countering Chloe1's specific point on media, her specific reference to the FACT that the two Clinton groups ARE well funded and DO disseminate talking points in media, on forums, etc.

Even though she doesn't cite specific references to make her specific point regarding what she observed in this regard, it can't be denied that her overall point is completely valid, that message manufacturing is of course occurring.

Your comment in response "One has only to watch for oneself", indicates that either you might not a very sophisticated observer of "manufacturing of consent" in the media. It's okay, you can become more sophisticated, with a little bit of effort. So many articles published on CD demonstrate these things quite well. CD is a valuable resource on the topic that Chloe is obviously quite informed on.

Your comment "Some of it is hard to distort" insinuates that Chloe is making a distortion regarding her accounting of Clinton's well funded messaging operations, or maybe I'm just misunderstanding your quip here.

On topic.