My 2 cents on this:
"I think it's always important to answer the questions"
This is true if the win-loss is decided by the veracity of each candidate's statements. If this is decided by how persuasive a candidate is, then it doesn't matter. In fact, there would be situations where it'd be better to answer a different question or provide non-answers. Both candidates did that to varying degrees. Which one was more persuasive? Probably Trump.
"I don't think there was any attack that would particularly sway voters."
Might be true, though the audience did clap to some of Donald Trump's retorts.
"People are just tired of the personal attacks"
Are they? Again, the most audience applause and the most memorable moments came after some of Trump's biting retorts like "Because you'd be in jail."
"Going back to Bill Clinton, that doesn't affect Hillary Clinton at all. Believe it or not, they're two different people."
Two things with this:
1) By contrasting words with actions, Trump provided perspective on the bigger issues at hand. As a politician and former president Bill Clinton is relevant enough to bring up in the discussion even if it had nothing to do with Hillary. Contrast is an effective tool for bringing things into perspective.
2) Trump made it clear that Hillary attacked the women who accused Bill Clinton of those acts. Talking about Bill Clinton was to create the context. The actual point is: Hillary attacking these women is worse than Trump using crude language in private conversation. (I have no idea if this allegation against Hillary is true, but this is the correct iteration of Trump's argument. Not sure if the kid didn't get access to the full clip or was being disingenuous.)
"If I have to address something negatively about me in a debate that I have to do, you always want to defuse the situation, and I think the strategy that he took with defusing it is saying that it's 'locker room talk - '"
I'm in agreement with his statements, but there's no follow-up conclusion about the efficacy of Trump's attempted defusing of the situation because CNN cut the video here. I wish they didn't; I would have liked to hear his elaboration.
"To just refer to it as 'locker room talk,' basically seems like he was trying to brush it off."
Obviously Trump was trying to dismiss it. Crude language in private conversation is not relevant to anything. If I said the same thing 11 years ago I'd dismiss it as well. Though Trump didn't just brush it off; he also apologized. I think that's the first time I've seen him do that so far in his campaign (though I think his choice of words were "I'm sorry if I offended you" if I recall correctly).
"I just couldn't believe that a man who wants to be our president would say these things."
Probably the dumbest statement of the lot. To disqualify people on the basis of crude language in private conversations is silly. To disqualify people on the basis of crude language in private conversations that occurred more than a decade ago is insanity.
"They both kind of deviated from the path of actually addressing policy and issues that are facing the United States."
A valid observation, which indicates that this debate is not being fought on facts but on persuasion (see the first quote).
"That's what the American people want to know. They don't care about people's past, they want to know what you're gonna do for us in the future."
Much of the targets of attacks for both candidates occurred decades ago (Hillary defending a rapist in a trial, Trump saying naughty words). Even this CNN video is guilty of that. Unfortunately this kid is assuming his sensible viewpoints are shared among average Americans.
0
