Trump vs Biden - First Presidential Debate of 2020 Who you won?

Jump to Last Post 1-16 of 16 discussions (191 posts)
  1. Stevennix2001 profile image88
    Stevennix2001posted 10 months ago

    Before anyone else opens a forum about this, and I know the debate is still going on.  However assuming you saw this thread after the debate, who do you think won?  Did Biden beat Trump? Or do you think Trump owned Biden in the debate?  Please discuss.

    1. wilderness profile image97
      wildernessposted 10 months agoin reply to this

      Well, it certainly wasn't the listener or the country!

    2. crankalicious profile image94
      crankaliciousposted 10 months agoin reply to this

      Nobody won. The American people lost.

    3. Credence2 profile image83
      Credence2posted 10 months agoin reply to this

      Biden put the idea of his mental inadequacy for the job to bed in his debate performance. He held his own against Trump through the debate.

      In my opinion, there was no great revelation from either side to the point where minds were actually changed as a result. In other words, people did not change their minds about which candidate they supported as a result of it.

      If I had a complaint about Biden it would be a sense of ambiguity about his idea of a green new deal and how it would provide all the new jobs and replace fossil fuels which seems a bit untenable right now.

      Trump complaints:

      He says he paid millions in income taxes while the tax return says otherwise, why should I believe him over the returns?

      He did not convince me about his certainty that a vaccine would be available in a matter of weeks when the scientist say it would be longer. What does he know that they do not?

      As Chris Wallace said, his behavior was the more boorish and disruptive between the two.

      1. Ken Burgess profile image89
        Ken Burgessposted 10 months agoin reply to this

        You must have watched a different debate.  He stumbled and bumbled more than once, though he did well... for Biden... which says nothing to his fitness for the office or the demands it puts on who holds it.

        If you think there is a "win" out of this for America... then I don't even know what I would call what your willing to settle for... "crumbs" is far too generous a term to encapsulate the choices we have been given.

        Biden is a slap in the face to all of America IMO.

        1. Kuyeabraham-world profile image72
          Kuyeabraham-worldposted 10 months agoin reply to this

          I vote for Trump......https://hubpages.com/politics/Why-Africans-Love-President-Donald-Trump

    4. abwilliams profile image68
      abwilliamsposted 10 months agoin reply to this

      I watched it in its entirety. I didn't like Wallace as the moderator, felt as if he preferred to spar.....with Trump!!
      Felt as if he (Wallace) handled Biden with kid gloves.
      Not sure why both campaigns agreed to two minute responses, not nearly enough time to make a point and drive it home. A lot of points fell short.
      I don't think that Trump "owned Biden", but he certainly covered more ground. We know where he stands, hard to say with Biden.
      Biden lost his cool often, allowing Trump to get under his skin.
      Biden told the President to shut up, more than once, he called him a clown, he called him racist and the worst President ever. If Trump told Biden he was the worst Senator or V.P. ever or name-called, I didn't hear it.
      I give the win to Trump, but not enthusiastically.

      1. GA Anderson profile image90
        GA Andersonposted 10 months agoin reply to this

        I didn't watch it all. I was disappointed just watching the first segment. It is not surprising that different folks see different things, but your Chris Wallace thought might be a safe point to look at.

        As I watched the president refuse to follow the debate protocol that had been agreed upon—relative to the timed response periods—and continue to interrupt and talk-over Biden, the Wallace "sparring" that you saw, was the rudeness of ignoring a moderator that was trying his best to maintain some sense of order to me.

        I was surprised that the president would completely ignore Wallace's efforts and just keep on talking over everyone. At one point all three men were talking at the same time.

        GA

        1. profile image0
          PrettyPantherposted 10 months agoin reply to this

          You were surprised?

          I am surprised that you were surprised. lol

          1. GA Anderson profile image90
            GA Andersonposted 10 months agoin reply to this

            My surprise was the degree of the president's complete disregard for the moderator and rude ignoring of the debate rules.

            GA

            1. wilderness profile image97
              wildernessposted 10 months agoin reply to this

              You should have kept watching the fiasco.  Biden was just as bad after about the second segment.

              1. GA Anderson profile image90
                GA Andersonposted 10 months agoin reply to this

                I did see a bit of Biden also doing it. My final verdict was only that Biden did it less. Which isn't saying much.

                However, I did see several bits where Biden tossed his Leftist buddies under the bus; "I am the Democrat Party," "My plan is not the Green New Deal." "I did not support Medicare for all, I supported fixing Obamacare and adding a public option for poor folks." etc.

                I can't see that going over well, and I can see lots of Trump commercials focusing on those statements.

                GA

                1. IslandBites profile image90
                  IslandBitesposted 10 months agoin reply to this

                  Would it go ok with moderates?

                  1. GA Anderson profile image90
                    GA Andersonposted 10 months agoin reply to this

                    My opinion is that neither side was okay with moderates. The only approvals I can see for either side would be for the base voters of each candidate.

                    I  think an independent/moderate would have an issue with the position reversals on major issues for the Left, (Biden), and the bombastic rudeness for the Righ, (Trump).

                    GA
                    GA

                2. profile image0
                  PrettyPantherposted 10 months agoin reply to this

                  Uh, those are all factual statements and his positions are probably why he is the Democratic nominee. Why would it be a problem for him to clearly state his positions? Sure, Bernie and his supporters wanted Medicare for All and Biden didn't .AOC supported The Green New Deal while Biden put forth a different plan.  This is not breaking news.

                  1. GA Anderson profile image90
                    GA Andersonposted 10 months agoin reply to this

                    Yes, it is "Breaking news." After he got the nomination, and until the debate, Biden had been promoting his 'Bernieness' and was fully supportive of AOC's 'Green New Deal.' Now it isn't 'Medicare for all', (as promoted by Bernie), it is a Public, (Medicaid), Option for the poor combined with an updated ACA, (retaining pharma's private insurance industry), and the "Green New Deal" he supported is now "Biden's Green Deal."

                    Do you think it is his positions—as now stated, or his positions as promoted during the campaign that are his real positions? The changes I heard in the debates sounded like breaking news to me.

                    GA

                3. Credence2 profile image83
                  Credence2posted 10 months agoin reply to this

                  But at least with Biden at the helm, those to left of him will have the opportunity for some input.

                  1. GA Anderson profile image90
                    GA Andersonposted 10 months agoin reply to this

                    Yes, but will his apparent abandonment of the 'Leftist' ideas he portrayed as endorsed after the nomination hurt him with those 'Bernie supporters' that he needs to get on his team?

                    GA

                4. crankalicious profile image94
                  crankaliciousposted 10 months agoin reply to this

                  What were Biden's options? There were agreed upon rules, which Trump immediately broke. Neither Trump nor his supporters seem to care much about the rules, so what options did Biden have? Just stand there and let Trump walk all over him? Complain to the moderator? Walk off the stage?

                  I think his options moving forward are to refuse to participate in the next two debates unless the rules are changed and the participants are either penalized for interrupting or simply not allowed to speak while the other speaks.

                  1. profile image0
                    PrettyPantherposted 10 months agoin reply to this

                    I completely agree with this. There should be no further debates unless the rules are changed to completely forbid interruptions. I like the idea of silencing the other's mic when it is one's turn to speak.

                    How ridiculous is it to have to even be discussing such a thing?

                  2. GA Anderson profile image90
                    GA Andersonposted 10 months agoin reply to this

                    After the first 15 minutes I think he did have options that the viewing public would have understood. He could have just stopped talking when  Pres. Trump rudely interrupted and continued to ignore the moderator, and then make the point that he would gladly respond when allowed. I don't think that would have been seen as weak.

                    He could have started his answer with a note to the moderator that he would stop when rudely interrupted and resume when the moderator regained control. I don't think that would have been seen as weak either.

                    The way I saw the debate, I think Moderates and Independents would have seen Biden as 'taking the high road' if he had done either of those things.

                    GA

              2. crankalicious profile image94
                crankaliciousposted 10 months agoin reply to this

                I'm just wondering, what do you think Biden's options were? He couldn't complete a sentence and was being interrupted. Is it fair to say that if Trump followed the rules, Biden would have?

                I think if Biden just stood there and allowed Trump to interrupt him and didn't fire back, he would have been castigated as weak.

                What are you supposed to do in a fight where one person demonstrates he isn't going to follow the rules?

            2. IslandBites profile image90
              IslandBitesposted 10 months agoin reply to this

              I think she knows what you mean. big_smile

              About Wallace...

              I think he was very patient. I would have at the least tell him to shut up. I think he tried, but fell short, mainly because he tend to laugh off things. (And I guess he must have been flabbergasted and flustered). But I would like to see him press on the issues, especially when it was an obvious lie or an outrageous comment.

              Trump supporters are attacking him (as Trump did just a few minutes into the debate- "I guess Im debating you") because anyone that's not kissing his ... is against him. He did called on Biden when talked over Trump. Yes, it wasnt as much, cause Biden didnt interrupted as much.

            3. profile image0
              PrettyPantherposted 10 months agoin reply to this

              Yes, I know. His behavior is consistent with his malignant NPD. If he goes down, he will do his best to torch everything around him, like an angry, petulant Demon whose followers have forsaken him.

              Mark my words. I hope I am wrong, though.

              The Proud Boys are gleefully standing back and standing by, anxiously awaiting their signal.

        2. abwilliams profile image68
          abwilliamsposted 10 months agoin reply to this

          Hi GA, valid points all. But, you've failed to mention Joe Biden, other than, "three men talking at the same time".
          What did you think of his performance?
          When "clown" came to Joe's mind, he went with it. When "racist" came to Joe's mind, he went with it. Although many do not believe Trump deserves respect, he is still the President!
          At one time, the word stupid may have crossed Trump's mind, but instead, he went with not smart or don't use smart with me (something like that)  For me, that wasn't a little thing, that was Trump taking the high road. (my astute analysis wink)

          I was not impressed with the outcome, would love to see them give it another go in a different format.

          1. crankalicious profile image94
            crankaliciousposted 10 months agoin reply to this

            Biden should refuse to participate in any more debates until the format has them both in glass booths with microphones turned off when it's not their turn.

            1. profile image0
              PrettyPantherposted 10 months agoin reply to this

              Agree. It is clear Trump has the self-control of a toddler who needs his nap.

            2. abwilliams profile image68
              abwilliamsposted 10 months agoin reply to this

              I'd watch.

              1. crankalicious profile image94
                crankaliciousposted 10 months agoin reply to this

                They could insult each other all they want. What they could not do was talk over each other and insult the American voter as we try to listen to three people talk at once.

                1. abwilliams profile image68
                  abwilliamsposted 10 months agoin reply to this

                  I agree 100%.

          2. wilderness profile image97
            wildernessposted 10 months agoin reply to this

            Yeah - a format where the moderator can turn off their mic.

            1. abwilliams profile image68
              abwilliamsposted 10 months agoin reply to this

              Something needs to change for sure...I actually like Crank's idea, the mic's off when it isn't their turn. If it's a moderator, such as Chris Wallace, incapable of remaining neutral, he would never turn the President's mic on to start with. :-)

              1. crankalicious profile image94
                crankaliciousposted 10 months agoin reply to this

                How do you remain neutral as a moderator when one of the participants is violating the agreed upon rules of the debate?

                1. Stevennix2001 profile image88
                  Stevennix2001posted 10 months agoin reply to this

                  Both participants did talk over each other to be fair.

                2. abwilliams profile image68
                  abwilliamsposted 10 months agoin reply to this

                  Crank, I agreed with, "They could insult each other all they want. What they could not do was talk over each other and insult the American voter as we try to listen to three people talk at once."

                  If you are blaming everything that went wrong on one participant, if you are putting this solely on Trump, I don't agree with that.

                  1. crankalicious profile image94
                    crankaliciousposted 10 months agoin reply to this

                    Well, since you bring it up. Of course it's mostly Trump's fault. How do we know this? Because we have many examples of Biden debating and a few of Trump. Trump behaves this way every time. Biden behaves according to the rules of the event. In this case, Biden reacted to Trump's behavior.

                    I'm not sure what Biden could have done other than come up with some better zingers. I thought his responses were particularly weak. Was he supposed to just stand there and let Trump interrupt? When somebody bullies you, the best response is usually to punch them in the face. I'm not sure Biden's punch was very powerful, but at least he didn't let the bully knock him down.

          3. GA Anderson profile image90
            GA Andersonposted 10 months agoin reply to this

            I can't speak to what I think of Biden's performance. I didn't get to hear him. I only watched bits of a few segments and in those segments, Trump completely drowned out whatever Biden was attempting to say by speaking over him.

            I did watch the first 15 or 20 minutes of the first segment. By then I was so disappointed with the president's behavior I didn't care to do more then pop in and out to see if things changed. They didn't.

            GA

          4. Kathryn L Hill profile image80
            Kathryn L Hillposted 10 months agoin reply to this

            Yes, a much different format and another moderator.

        3. crankalicious profile image94
          crankaliciousposted 10 months agoin reply to this

          Kudos to you, GA, for being fair-minded.

        4. Stevennix2001 profile image88
          Stevennix2001posted 10 months agoin reply to this

          To be fair, Biden did try to talk over trump as well and I too watched the entire debate.    I think overall Wallace just did a horrible job keeping both candidates on point.

          1. GA Anderson profile image90
            GA Andersonposted 10 months agoin reply to this

            Yes, I did see Biden do it too. As mentioned, at one point all three men were talking at the same time and no one could hear what anyone was saying.

            GA

      2. peoplepower73 profile image92
        peoplepower73posted 10 months agoin reply to this

        ab:  Trump said he has accomplished more in 47 months than Biden has in 47 years.  In my book that is calling him the worst for whatever he has done in 47 years. It could also mean that Trump has screwed up he country more in 47 months than Biden has in 47 years.

      3. crankalicious profile image94
        crankaliciousposted 10 months agoin reply to this

        Perhaps they could get one of these Proud Boys to moderate the next one.

      4. Kuyeabraham-world profile image72
        Kuyeabraham-worldposted 10 months agoin reply to this

        Trump is my man, please as I follow you, please comment on my article, thanks....https://hubpages.com/politics/Why-Africans-Love-President-Donald-Trump

    5. crankalicious profile image94
      crankaliciousposted 10 months agoin reply to this

      How much does this debate represent qualities of the man who caused it? Generally, here's what we saw:

      1. The worst debate in history.
      2. A participant who clearly wasn't going to follow the rules agreed upon. That's called cheating, isn't it? (assuming you accept Trump as the instigator)
      3. Lies
      4. Chaos

      So, let's review: worst, cheating, lies, chaos.

      Those adjectives describe Trump's presidency pretty well, IMHO. It also describes the man pretty well.

      1. Stevennix2001 profile image88
        Stevennix2001posted 10 months agoin reply to this

        I tend to think all politicians lie, which does include both Joe Biden and Donald Trump.  Some politicians just lie and cheat more than others if we're being serious.  The only politician I trust is Bernie Sanders but that's just me.

      2. Stevennix2001 profile image88
        Stevennix2001posted 10 months agoin reply to this

        Quick question.   Can you mute people during a zoom or Skype call?   I don't use those that often but I think you can right?  Can someone answer that for me?   If so then wouldn't it just be easier too do that during the next two debates via webcam and simply mute the participant that interrupts while the other speaks?

        1. wilderness profile image97
          wildernessposted 10 months agoin reply to this

          I don't know about Skype, but zoom gives the moderator the ability to mute anyone.

          I think that if a similar format is chosen, with 2 minutes to speak then 15 minutes of open time, that those 2 minutes should automatically be muted from the wrong candidate.  Not done by the moderator if an interruption happens, just an automatic mute.

          Of course, that leaves the next 15 minutes with 2 or three people tall talking at the same time...

          1. profile image0
            PrettyPantherposted 10 months agoin reply to this

            I agree with you.

          2. abwilliams profile image68
            abwilliamsposted 10 months agoin reply to this

            I like it! 15 minutes of open time to banter++ is a good thing, as long as the moderator is not involved in the banter....may the best man win.

  2. GA Anderson profile image90
    GA Andersonposted 10 months ago

    I agree with both Wilderness and Crankalicious.  I didn't get to watch non-stop, but if the parts I missed are like the segments I saw, then everybody lost; the candidates, the moderator, and the viewers.

    It was such a disappointment.

    GA

    1. crankalicious profile image94
      crankaliciousposted 10 months agoin reply to this

      I just watched a few parts and turned it off. I followed a bit of internet recapping.

      No matter who you support, it couldn't have changed your mind. And if you were undecided, I think there's a good chance the debate convinced you not to vote.

      The one thing I will say about Trump is that the people who are undecided express a certain exhaustion and I don't think Trump helped himself in that respect. It was exhausting after five minutes.

    2. Ken Burgess profile image89
      Ken Burgessposted 10 months agoin reply to this

      The Moderator seemed to be just as obnoxious/interruptive/annoying as the two candidates.

      My first thought, after getting as few laughs at the stupidity of it all, was to note the obvious effort of Biden to outdo Trump in obnoxiousness and disrespect (which he succeeded at IMO)... honestly I didn't think I could have a lower opinion of Biden, I was wrong.

      I don't think Trump did well at all.

      I don't think he had a sound strategy for dealing with Biden laughing at him and disrespecting him.

      If it wasn't for Biden's obvious moments of spacing out mentally and his occasional rambling incoherently I would have said he won the debate... but he is a corrupt establishment puppet  so who really cares if he "won" all of America loses.

      1. wilderness profile image97
        wildernessposted 10 months agoin reply to this

        I thought he did pretty well in simply ignoring the mocking laughter.  It never pays to comment or even acknowledge such behavior, and in a debate for the highest office in the world it was beyond belief that that was the best one could come up with.

  3. profile image0
    PrettyPantherposted 10 months ago

    It was an incredibly disheartening spectacle. Trump was a spectacular lying bully and Chris Wallace failed to keep him in check. Biden held his own within the chaos.

    I cannot believe that lying, low-life bully is our president. It's so, so sad. A total disgrace.

    1. Stevennix2001 profile image88
      Stevennix2001posted 10 months agoin reply to this

      To Biden's credit, he certainly did better than I expected during the debate, as I had my doubts about him given his mental state, but he held his own fairly well for the most part.

    2. crankalicious profile image94
      crankaliciousposted 10 months agoin reply to this

      Perhaps in the next debate they can stand in glass booths and if they interrupt, the moderator turns their microphone off.

      1. GA Anderson profile image90
        GA Andersonposted 10 months agoin reply to this

        I would give Chris Wallace an "A" for effort. In the few segments, I saw he did try to control the president's interruptions and over-talking, although unsuccessfully.

        I saw the president as extremely rude and bombastic, but, Biden was also rude and over-talking, although to a lesser degree.

        If a winner must be declared, I would say Biden because at least he wasn't as badly behaved as Trump—in my opinion of course.

        GA

        1. profile image0
          PrettyPantherposted 10 months agoin reply to this

          Well, let's see. Trump, the President of the United States, wouldn't condemn white supremacists.

          Automatic disqualifier?

          Well, unless you're a white supremacist. I hear they're high-fiving it all over social media.

          1. wilderness profile image97
            wildernessposted 10 months agoin reply to this

            Or a rioter - Biden absolutely refused to talk about his failure to call for riot control in Portland or other riot-ridden cities.

            So Trump approves of white supremacists and Biden likes to watch cities burn.  What a pair!

            1. profile image0
              PrettyPantherposted 10 months agoin reply to this

              Biden has repeatedly denounced violence. I don't remember if he got a chance to do so in the debate. It was hard to hear over Trump's baby talk.

              1. wilderness profile image97
                wildernessposted 10 months agoin reply to this

                Yes, he got the chance and denounced it again.

                And still refused to speak about why he didn't call for Portland to end the rioting there.  Specifically asked, he just changed the topic and talked about how he was for law and order.

                1. profile image0
                  PrettyPantherposted 10 months agoin reply to this

                  He said they should handle it and the feds are only stirring things up. As an Oregonian, I can attest that most people here agree with him. I can  also say that my relatives and friends who live there are tired of certain media and the president using Portland as their liberal boogeyman and exaggerating the violence as well as  mischaracterizing the source and nature of it,

                  1. GA Anderson profile image90
                    GA Andersonposted 10 months agoin reply to this

                    Since my only impression is what I have seen the media present, (I am not going by what Pres. Trump says), do you really think the Portland violence was exaggerated? Or are you saying Trump exaggerated it?

                    GA

                    1. profile image0
                      PrettyPantherposted 10 months agoin reply to this

                      Yes, right-wing media, in my opinion, makes it sound like Portland is under siege and its residents live in terror. This is a gross exaggeration. Right-wing media also fails to note that most of the violence is unrelated to BLM and a significant amount is instigated by right-wing extremists pretending to be protestors. Lastly, right-wing media fails to call out Portland and federal police for their role in escalating tension.

            2. peoplepower73 profile image92
              peoplepower73posted 10 months agoin reply to this

              Wilderness:  Biden does not hold a government office, but Trump is the president.  This is happening on his watch.  What do you expect Biden to do?

          2. abwilliams profile image68
            abwilliamsposted 10 months agoin reply to this

            Didn't Wallace specifically ask him about the Proud Boys? Unless blacks are now part of "white supremacist" groups, this isn't a white supremacist group. The leader of the proud boys is black (whatever the case, he isn't white) The members of the proud boys are a smorgasbord of colors, so was Trump supposed to condemn them because they aren't affiliated with BLM or Antifa? Confused by this comment.

            1. IslandBites profile image90
              IslandBitesposted 10 months agoin reply to this

              No. Biden mentioned Proud Boys. Wallace asked him to condemn white supremacists and right-wing militia. He didn't.

              https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MqHCU6Xhjvw

              1. Live to Learn profile image79
                Live to Learnposted 10 months agoin reply to this

                My opinion is that it is difficult to condemn anything until labels are agreed upon. I keep hearing the proud boys are white supremacists. I have never heard any statement from their mouths to support the charge.

                The left appears to label any who don't regurgitate whatever their talking point of the day is. I feel Trump couldn't agree until he had a clear understanding of who they were talking about.

                The left wants to label every conservative 'white supremacist'. I listen to a lot of commentary from people of all colors who lean right. Labeling all with that is ridiculous.

                1. wilderness profile image97
                  wildernessposted 10 months agoin reply to this

                  You're right.  Anyone that doesn't fall for the "white privilege" gig, fight for "reparations" for anyone not Caucasian and decry "systemic racism" is obviously a white supremacist.  Labels are an easy method of demonizing people.

                2. IslandBites profile image90
                  IslandBitesposted 10 months agoin reply to this

                  Of course you think it is.

                  Doesnt matter what the left thinks. He couldnt even condemn what he think it is.

                  I feel Trump couldn't agree until he had a clear understanding of who they were talking about.

                  You mean this "I don't know who Proud Boys are" clear vision? Suuure.

    3. NayNay2124 profile image84
      NayNay2124posted 10 months ago

      The President of the United States should represent all people regardless of their race. There is no excuse for the racist behavior of this President tonight. There is a real problem in this country if you can defend the racist comments of this President tonight.

    4. Credence2 profile image83
      Credence2posted 10 months ago

      https://www.independent.co.uk/news/worl … 13308.html

      Who are these  "Proud Boys"?

      Are these the sort of people and groups that Trump gave his ok and tacit "marching orders" to?

      Who is it that can believe that I would have any affinity toward anyone supportive of such an organization, surreptitiously or otherwise? How does that bring us all together?

      What choice do I have but to vote against such sentiment and those that support it wherever it is to be found?

    5. Stevennix2001 profile image88
      Stevennix2001posted 10 months ago

      Well on the bright side, at least last night's debate helped make this awesome video with Weird Al Yankovic.  smile 

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=un9x-DjTMT0

      1. IslandBites profile image90
        IslandBitesposted 10 months agoin reply to this

        lol


        Btw, it also helped the Lincoln project.Ha!

        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KMtfAySJWJo

      2. peoplepower73 profile image92
        peoplepower73posted 10 months agoin reply to this

        They need to make Trump wear an electric shocker. Every time he would interrupt or lie, he would receive an electric shock. After while, I think he would learn to shut-up. It's called conditioned response.

        1. abwilliams profile image68
          abwilliamsposted 10 months agoin reply to this

          I see this thread has gone straight to the gutter.
          What a horrible thing to say about the President of the United States.

          1. profile image0
            PrettyPantherposted 10 months agoin reply to this

            He was joking. He was being sarcastic. Those explanations should go down easily by now. big_smile

            [That was another joke,]

      3. GA Anderson profile image90
        GA Andersonposted 10 months agoin reply to this

        Great link. Almost made up for the pain of watching.

        GA

    6. abwilliams profile image68
      abwilliamsposted 10 months ago

      Oh, okay!  So, during the Obama Admin., if I had said, if only someone would put a shock collar on Barack Obama and every time he says, we are just days away from fundamentally transforming the United States of America, he gets a shock, maybe that will shut him up, you would have reminded everyone that I was being sarcastic, making a joke?

      1. profile image0
        PrettyPantherposted 10 months agoin reply to this

        Uh, yeah.

        You didn't "get" my comment at all.

        1. abwilliams profile image68
          abwilliamsposted 10 months agoin reply to this

          ....and to be clear I would never say anything like that about any President, jokingly or otherwise.

          1. profile image0
            PrettyPantherposted 10 months agoin reply to this

            Goodie for you. But you continue to support a man who has said as bad or worse, in my opinion, while occupying the oiffce. So, maybe you will understand my bemusement at your outrage. ;-)

            1. abwilliams profile image68
              abwilliamsposted 10 months agoin reply to this

              I know how it works here by now.
              Whether you are far left, a Dem, a Moderate, a Rep, a Conservative, yes you may...insult, name-call, point and laugh, make up stuff, repeat hearsay, say things such as "put him in a shock collar", about the President. Nothing is off limits when it comes to Trump!
              If you must say something decent about him, make sure there's a quick negative to add, make sure there's a "but", make sure a bigger insult is waiting in the wings...otherwise you'll not be worthy of being taken seriously.

      2. Stevennix2001 profile image88
        Stevennix2001posted 10 months agoin reply to this

        I don't recall a lot of people making fun of Obama or making jokes about him, when he was president.  Maybe there were, and I might've missed them, but I never heard or seen any to my knowledge.   I have seen a lot of jokes about Trump though, and arguably more so than I've seen other presidential candidates have gotten in recent years.  But to be fair, almost every president in US history has been the butt of jokes honestly when you think about it.

        Heck, I think that tradition dates back well into the George Washington days too if I'm not mistaken.   

        However, I think that's one of the greatest benefits about this country is that whether we agree with the candidates we have in office or not, we can  still laugh at them, or even question a lot of their policies.   

        Most countries don't have that right.  Heck if you and I lived in North Korea, Kim Jong Un could easily have us both killed if we even looked at him funny.  Let alone say any jokes about him.   I mean we are talking about the same dude who threatened to go to war with us over something as moronically stupid as a film called "The Interview" if anyone remembers that fiasco. 

        Granted, some people take free speech too far in the US like when Snoop Dogg did a music video called Lavender, where he shot a man dressed up as a clown version of Donald Trump with a toy gun, which got him investigated by the secret service for that little stunt, but still.   And then there was this one joke where some red haired lady had a fake severed head of Trump and posted it online, as that was definitely in bad taste if you ask me. 

        However, it's a bit of a double edge sword when it comes to free speech.  Although I do agree with you that whether we like Trump or not, he does deserve some respect, but at the same time, I would never want our country to lose it's right to question our leaders openly either because if we lose that right, then what makes us any different than a nation like China or North Korea?

    7. emge profile image79
      emgeposted 10 months ago

      I saw the debate, I think Biden did very well and Trump looked tense. Biden scored.

    8. abwilliams profile image68
      abwilliamsposted 10 months ago

      The "right-wing militia" in question is Proud Boys. No doubt they are on the right attempting to stop the leftist destroyers of the U.S., Antifa and BLM, but they aren't white supremacists.

      1. peoplepower73 profile image92
        peoplepower73posted 10 months agoin reply to this

        ab: I wrote the comment about Trump and the shock collar.  It's called satire.  It's what political cartoons are all about. I can pull up all kinds of ridicule about Obama and his family being black, including them being apes.

        I would like to remind everybody that Hillary won the popular vote.  Trump won the electoral college because that is where he concentrated his campaign and Hillary didn't.  Biden has been winning in those states because he is concentrating his campaign there, but Trump is losing in those same states.
        .
        Here are the facts about Proud Boys:

        https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/ … t-agencies

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proud_Boys

        1. abwilliams profile image68
          abwilliamsposted 10 months agoin reply to this

          I will be so happy when Donald Trump not only wins the Electoral College but the Popular vote as well, to put this illegitimacy campaign to bed, once and for all.

          Here are the facts about Proud Boys:

          https://go.shr.lc/2GhevPd

          1. abwilliams profile image68
            abwilliamsposted 10 months agoin reply to this

            P.S.P.P: IF you had shared the "put him in a shock collar" comment satirically or in a political cartoon, you might have a case.....

            1. peoplepower73 profile image92
              peoplepower73posted 10 months agoin reply to this

              ab: I guess it never did occur to you that Biden could not only win the popular vote, but also the electoral college vote as well. But Trump will not accept that as legitimate because if he loses, he knows he is dead meat with 10 charges of obstruction of justice and tax evasion, and possibly even money laundering, and fraud.

              All you have to do is picture the political cartoon.  Or do you mean the cartoons that were made about Obama and his family?

              1. Stevennix2001 profile image88
                Stevennix2001posted 10 months agoin reply to this

                After the last presidential election, I don't trust any polls prior to election day honestly.

        2. wilderness profile image97
          wildernessposted 10 months agoin reply to this

          "I would like to remind everybody that Hillary won the popular vote."

          Why?  Because it, in your mind at least, makes the actual winner illegitimate?  Because it gives the losing side a bone to bite on, giving the impression that they didn't lose after all?

    9. profile image0
      PrettyPantherposted 10 months ago

      Wow. I feel sick reading this. It took y'all a day or two to rationalize how you would defend Trump's clear unwillingness to condemn white supremacists, but here you are.

      My, my.

      https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate … proud-boys

      1. abwilliams profile image68
        abwilliamsposted 10 months agoin reply to this
      2. abwilliams profile image68
        abwilliamsposted 10 months agoin reply to this

        If I had seen your comment about white supremacy earlier, I would have responded to it earlier.

    10. profile image0
      PrettyPantherposted 10 months ago

      I love how the focus is on what Biden should do, how Biden should react, whether Biden should take the high road or low road, ad nauseum.

      How about we just say the President of the United States, once again, bullied and cheated his way through yet another American tradition that used to have minimum standards of decorum and thereby brought our country to yet another new low.

      How about just stating the truth of what happened? Both Biden and Wallace were at the mercy of a malicious bully on national TV and no matter how they had reacted or handled it,they would be criticized.

    11. abwilliams profile image68
      abwilliamsposted 10 months ago

      "We have warned the Republicans that there will be consequences if they appoint this nominee to court under these circumstances. Are we prepared to follow through?"
      "We'll see each other in hell and we will all go there together."

      This is an awfully threatening comment Cred. Is this "satirical, a joke, a political cartoon, which we must visualize" and I am just not savvy enough to keep up?

      We are all too aware of the warnings, threats and actions, trust me, we do not put anything past the left.

      1. Credence2 profile image83
        Credence2posted 10 months agoin reply to this

        Why should Dems and progressives sit on the side lines while the GOP play hardball?

        Right now, AB, it is a threatening milieu all the way around. Denying Obama his right to seat a justice during his term on a shaky rationale, while the GOP does not apply that to its own selection process is unacceptable.

        The Right has behaved dishonestly and unethically and reprisals will and can be expected from our side.

        Those reprisals are of a legislative nature and not intended to go beyond that.

        You are "keeping up" just fine......
        How does anyone benefit with the Democrats always being the fall guy, except Republicans and rightwingers?

        1. peoplepower73 profile image92
          peoplepower73posted 10 months agoin reply to this

          Trump sees himself as elites.  He feels he does not have to follow any rules or norms.  That's precisely what he did in the debate, even though his people agreed to the rules.

          He is like a boxer who has been given the rules and the first thing he does is hit his opponent below the belt and when the referee tries to stop him, he just continues doing it until the whole thing is thrown into chaos while denying that he did it. 

          That is what he has done throughout his administration...and then he brings in his lawyers and tries to sue them.  But his supporters cheer him on, because they love that about him.

          1. Credence2 profile image83
            Credence2posted 10 months agoin reply to this

            Right, Peoplepower, how can you work with anyone that refuses to follow any rules, like Trump on the debate night?

            I get this whiff of the Democrats taking a draconian attitude about all of this and quite frankly, I think that it is high time that we did.

            Nice to see you again, PeoplePower.

            1. peoplepower73 profile image92
              peoplepower73posted 10 months agoin reply to this

              Nice to see you too Credence2.

            2. abwilliams profile image68
              abwilliamsposted 10 months agoin reply to this
              1. peoplepower73 profile image92
                peoplepower73posted 10 months agoin reply to this

                ab:  This is  what  actually was said by Trump right after the protest.  You be the judge.

                https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JmaZR8E12bs

        2. abwilliams profile image68
          abwilliamsposted 10 months agoin reply to this

          The circumstances were very different. Obama was finishing up his 2nd term, he was a lame duck President, when Scalia passed away. They were both done.

          1. Readmikenow profile image98
            Readmikenowposted 10 months agoin reply to this

            I don't know if anyone on the left realizes that if they wanted obama's pick for the Supreme Court to have a vote...they should have won the Senate.  Sorry, losers don't get to dictate things.  They lost the Senate, there is no obligation of the Senate to hold a hearing on a supreme court nomination until they choose. 

            They shouldn't blame Republicans because they lost the Senate.  They need to blame themselves and obama.

            1. Ken Burgess profile image89
              Ken Burgessposted 10 months agoin reply to this

              Indeed, that is not the "truth" that the "Left" is pushing, however.

              When either party controls BOTH the Senate and the Executive Office, these nominations & confirmations typically occur in quick fashion.

              When they are controlled by opposing parties, they often are contentious at best, and more often derailed in their entirety.

              The Republicans should have never given a lame or false excuse for doing what was in the best interest of their party, and what was expected by those who voted for them.

              1. Credence2 profile image83
                Credence2posted 10 months agoin reply to this

                'The Republicans should have never given a lame or false excuse for doing what was in the best interest of their party, and what was expected by those who voted for them.'
                ------
                So, nobody should be surprised if that is the way the Dems will conduct themselves without exception if they win the Congress and the Executive.

                1. Ken Burgess profile image89
                  Ken Burgessposted 10 months agoin reply to this

                  I think they showed that is exactly what they will do when they last controlled Congress and the Executive Branch, with no support from Republicans and a majority of Americans opposed they passed the ACA.

                  I think should they regain control of the Senate and Executive and maintain control of the House, they will be even less concerned for what the majority of Americans think or want, not that they seemed particularly concerned about it back then.

                  1. Credence2 profile image83
                    Credence2posted 10 months agoin reply to this

                    Ken, what majority? They are just the opinions of conservatives and Rightwingers, hardly anyone I would consider as the prominent spokespeople of America.

                    I don't think the GOP has represented America's interests from my standpoint and that is the rub, isn't it?

              2. GA Anderson profile image90
                GA Andersonposted 10 months agoin reply to this

                "The Republicans should have never given a lame or false excuse for doing what was in the best interest of their party, and what was expected by those who voted for them."

                And there is the truth that neither side will admit.

                GA

          2. Credence2 profile image83
            Credence2posted 10 months agoin reply to this

            Yeah, so, it is a lame excuse and I don't buy it.

            We have to look for similar situations in the past to see if that attitude prevailed among prior congresses and Presidents?

            1. abwilliams profile image68
              abwilliamsposted 10 months agoin reply to this

              Lame from your perspective.
              When you start looking into it, consider too that the Senate was controlled by Republicans at the time.

              1. Credence2 profile image83
                Credence2posted 10 months agoin reply to this

                https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appointme … ted_States

                Your point is well received, luckily the numbers support the fact that there have been no instances where "lame duck" (those that are at the end of their second terms) Presidents had a supreme court nominee confirmed by the Senate in the last year of their service. This has been true from the beginning of the 20th Century, that is far enough to reasonably look into the past for an example.

                I don't buy the reason between making the restriction when the occupant is a lame duck vs coming up for election that he or she may or may not win. McConnell said that the American people need to have a say based on what happens in the next election and who comes to power at that time. There should not be an exception or a difference, but McConnell covered his a$$ well using precedent where the numbers just happen to work out for him

                McConnell is just as clever as he is diabolical, knowing that I would probably check into the validity and the consistency of his explanation.

          3. GA Anderson profile image90
            GA Andersonposted 10 months agoin reply to this

            Come on AbWilliams. That rationalization is not typical of you. Pres. Obama was not a "lame duck," (because he couldn't be reelected), as typically understood, in February—8 months before the election.

            For me, there is is no rationalization that belies the truth of the political situation; the Republicans had the power to block Pres. Obama's nomination, (regardless of their rationale for doing so), and the Democrats do not have the power to block Pres. Trump's nomination.

            Do you have any doubt that reversing the situation of the times either party would have acted differently in reverse positions?

            GA

    12. GA Anderson profile image90
      GA Andersonposted 10 months ago

      Gee, I thought that was what I did. I only issued a thought to what Biden's options might have been. Not a word in defense of the president's behavior. Contrarily, I think from my first comment, I entered criticizing Pres. Trump's behavior.

      GA

      1. profile image0
        PrettyPantherposted 10 months agoin reply to this

        Without looking back, I recall you did criticize the president. I think you said he was rude, but that Biden was also rude, just less so. You can probably guess that, from my perspective, that is a puny assessment of Trump's role in creating that chaotic trash fire that could not properly be called a debate. So, when you then started focusing on Biden, right along with the typical Trumpers, well, my opinion is that you were participating in changing the focus from the real reason that "debate" was so maddeningly awful. Trump is very good at what he does.

        1. GA Anderson profile image90
          GA Andersonposted 10 months agoin reply to this

          So, unless I jump onto the anti-Trump train with full-throated gusto, (to match your own), I am just piddling around the edges?

          I said what I said with the emphasis I felt appropriate, if that isn't enough then I guess I just fall short of your expectations.

          GA

          1. profile image0
            PrettyPantherposted 10 months agoin reply to this

            You are entitled to your own assessments, of course.  I am offering mine. So, yes, I am often disappointed. Such is life. [shrug]

            1. GA Anderson profile image90
              GA Andersonposted 10 months agoin reply to this

              I think that, when the verdict is finally rendered, you will find that we are not so far apart.

              If these discussions could be judged on policy issues rather than character issues we may find that our differences aren't so different.

              On the character issues, I think I can say I am a member of your camp, but, on the policy issues, we are worlds apart. I dislike the man and regret that he represents my America to the world, but on policy issues, I think he is on the right track and has addressed many issues that our two-party political machine has ignored for their own interests.

              If we must argue, let's argue policies, because we will be just a couple more voices in the choir on character issues.

              GA

              1. profile image0
                PrettyPantherposted 10 months agoin reply to this

                Well, I think the difference between you and me, besides the policy differences, is that I see the character issues, and so many Amercans' acceptance of them, as so overwhelmingly disturbing as to override anything else. I also think the complete lack of character results in inhumane, destructive, and murderous execution of those policies. He border, the pandemic, just to name two.

                But, we are of two different minds on this, I guess. And, yes, it disappoints me.

                1. Ken Burgess profile image89
                  Ken Burgessposted 10 months agoin reply to this

                  In support of GA's position, I would have to say that many who "support" Trump do so while disliking his "character issues".

                  That has been the choice, in 2016 and in 2020.  Support the guy you prefer not to listen to or watch, but who is forwarding the interests that will benefit the country and its future generations.

                  Or support the politicians that say all the politically correct, civil and acceptable things, that are selling out the country and the people's best interests to Corporations, Banks, and Foreign Nations.

                  Trump isn't pointing out to America anything that the majority of us didn't already know... that our politicians are criminals, and the system is corrupt.

                  AOC herself point this out:
                  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hRM1t4RU69c

                  AOC also said "in any other country Joe Biden and I would not be in the same party."

                  Totally understandable comment, as the barely hidden truth of the matter is that those who control the power in the Democratic Party are one step worse in almost every category to any Republican.

                  The likes of Pelosi, Biden and Clinton are more corrupt and have done more to harm the American people than any foreign enemy or any Republican.

                  They talk the talk, whatever is necessary to get elected and remain in control and in power. They are nothing more than stooges for the things you hate the most about politics and government.

                  1. profile image0
                    PrettyPantherposted 10 months agoin reply to this

                    I once asked you to show me the corruption of Nancy Pelosi, as you had mentioned it many times, as you continue to do so here. You supplied a link to an article explaining how her husband's wealth had exploded due to wise investments. I responded to you that the article mentioned nothing corrupt or illegal and asked you to clarify. You never did.

                    You are prone to making broad assertions about people's ulterior motives and declare their actions to be corrupt, yet cannot seem to provide evidence.

                    If your sweeping assertion that "the likes of Pelosi, Biden and Clinton are more corrupt and have done more to harm the American people than any foreign enemy" is true, then you should be able to provide real evidence of that.

                    And, apparently, AOC thinks the Democrats are at least marginally better than the Republicans or she would have joined the Republicans.

    13. abwilliams profile image68
      abwilliamsposted 10 months ago

      Come on AB....!?!
      Cred has said, there will be consequences if this nominee is confirmed. We will go to hell together, he says!  People guy...PP whatever....said that Trump should be put in a shock collar next debate.
      What do you mean come on AB?
      There are bigger fish to fry.

      1. GA Anderson profile image90
        GA Andersonposted 10 months agoin reply to this

        I was not commenting on what "they" said, I was commenting on the stretch of what you said. I don't think a 'Well, they did it . . .' is ever a valid justification for a position.

        The truth, as Ken noted it, is always the safest path. It was just politics ABWilliams, there was no right-or-wrong or valid rationalizations involved. They were just the excuses offered.

        I am fine with you holding a supporting opinion of the Republican actions, but I am not fine with rationalizations that try to portray a position to be other than just a partisan position.

        GA

        1. abwilliams profile image68
          abwilliamsposted 10 months agoin reply to this

          No worries. When Cred is finished making threats, he is going to investigate past cases; consisting of a lame duck President, a Senate of a different party than the Prez and a dead or retired justice thrown into the mix.

          1. GA Anderson profile image90
            GA Andersonposted 10 months agoin reply to this

            "No worries . . . "

            And on this, we can agree, "No worries." We are simply enjoying a political dialogue. I enjoy your forum comments but feel compelled to help you stay out of the ditches.

            As for Cred, yeah, he does have his mantra. But so do we all.

            GA

            1. abwilliams profile image68
              abwilliamsposted 10 months agoin reply to this

              I make it a practice to stay out of gutters and ditches.
              Enjoy your weekend!

          2. Credence2 profile image83
            Credence2posted 10 months agoin reply to this

            AB, I can't make threats because I do not have the power to carry them out.

            I am just suggesting how all this might well play out with Democrats on the progressive left side, like myself.

            1. abwilliams profile image68
              abwilliamsposted 10 months agoin reply to this

              Good to know. More time for your investigation. Keep us posted.
              Take care.

      2. peoplepower73 profile image92
        peoplepower73posted 10 months agoin reply to this

        ab:  My thing about the shock collar is sarcasm, just like Trump used sarcasm to say drink Clorox and inject it into your veins to get rid of the  virus. 

        The difference is we all know he wasn't kidding because he asked Dr. Birx what she thought about it.  On the other hand, I was kidding about the shock collar, but Trump wasn't kidding because he gets advise from people who agree with him, not the experts.

        1. abwilliams profile image68
          abwilliamsposted 10 months agoin reply to this

          I was watching that day, that's not at all what the President said, but I don't expect you to be convinced by my words.
          Have a good day.

          1. peoplepower73 profile image92
            peoplepower73posted 10 months agoin reply to this

            ab:  Oh you are not even going to try.  I was looking forward to a testy debate. By the way, my name is Mike, not PP guy or whatever. You have a good day as well.

      3. Credence2 profile image83
        Credence2posted 10 months agoin reply to this

        Yes, either we work toward equality on all fronts at all times  or the ideas that bind us as a nation will cease to exist. There is no point in participating in a game where you cannot win regardless of how well you play.

        It will be just a matter of time for the complete schism to happen politically and then, geographically.

    14. Credence2 profile image83
      Credence2posted 10 months ago

      https://news.yahoo.com/trump-campaign-a … 54865.html

      So Trump and his campaign gang has a new bogey man?

      I don't see why we can't have a debate where each side has an opportunity to speak without interruption.

      Trump's attempts to dominate rather than debate and with that I cannot abide.  I say change the rules, mute the microphones at the appropriate times to prevent this slug fest from occurring again. If Trump really has a message is "bully" the only mode of communication that he is adept with? Why not let us clearly hear points to be made from either side.

      What is Trump afraid of that?

      1. wilderness profile image97
        wildernessposted 10 months agoin reply to this

        How about if we not only provide automatic muting for the first two minutes (on both sides, for Trump was not alone in talking over his opponent) but also require masks...eliminating the derisive, mocking laughter as well?

        1. Credence2 profile image83
          Credence2posted 10 months agoin reply to this

          Whatever it take to make certain that who ever has "the floor" is permitted to say his piece without interruption.

          We may to avoid conservation between the two as a condition to having an orderly debate and not a shouting match.

          But Trump would not even consider your suggestions, he wants the format to remain unchanged which has obviously been a disaster.

          1. wilderness profile image97
            wildernessposted 10 months agoin reply to this

            Hmm.  I believe both candidates approved that format, not just Trump.  And I believe that both candidates acted like squabbling children.

            You may wish to pretend that your candidate was the Golden Boy That Did No Wrong, but the rest of us know better.  Constant derision/mocking, interruptions, name calling - these are not the mark of Do No Wrong.  You may have plugged your ears and closed your eyes whenever Biden reverted to his childhood, but the rest of use did not - we gave him the same attention we gave Trump during his antics.

            1. Credence2 profile image83
              Credence2posted 10 months agoin reply to this

              Yeah, but why change the subject? Why does Trump resist changing the format to prevent a reoocurrance? The resistance proposed by him and his campaign are all over the news.

              1. Ken Burgess profile image89
                Ken Burgessposted 10 months agoin reply to this

                Why should he allow the changes?

                Who in their right mind is going to agree to someone being able to silence them?

                The last debate was utterly stupid, in large part because the moderator injected himself non-stop, and because they set the timer to 2 minutes.

                2 minutes, to elaborate on those questions?

                I get it, allowing Biden to ramble for more than two minutes just sets that senile fool up for failure, but lets be real, the only reason they want to change the format is so they can use it as a tool against Trump.

                All the things you think about Trump, and all the things you hear him accused of, and all the things that are dislikable about him that are real, Biden has him beat at... Biden is DC filth and garbage through and through.

                https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PuIHlxn9M7Y

                1. crankalicious profile image94
                  crankaliciousposted 10 months agoin reply to this

                  The American people deserve each candidate being allowed to provide uninterrupted responses so that we can evaluate their answers. It's really that simple.

                  If that's done, given your opinion and what you're suggesting, Trump would benefit from that change because Biden would end up rambling and being incoherent.

                  Quite honestly, from what I watched in the first debate, I thought the coherence of what Trump said was more clear to the people he was speaking to and Biden's responses were not so clear, though some of that had to do with being interrupted. Mind you, I don't agree with Trump's positions and think he has the intelligence of a second grader, but he was making sense from a GOP point of view.

                  Trump should agree to the format change because if he just speaks to the people about a good economy while explaining away COVID as something basically no nation has conquered, he would connect with a lot of people. I don't see how having a goal of interrupting Biden does anything for him.

                2. Credence2 profile image83
                  Credence2posted 10 months agoin reply to this

                  Ken, I am not discerning anything from either candidate in an environment of constant interruption of each speaker.

                  I want to hear both sides, who is afraid of that unless you like the fact that Trump can bully his way through without providing anything substantive. That may work for you, but for me, not so much.

                  Biden is given two minutes and so is Trump, why is Biden rambling and Trump does not? Your partisan nature is ever more revealed in just this comment you made.

                  Your opinion is your opinion, but it is not mine. Both men have the right to speak under forum rules for a specified time, uninterrupted.

                  Biden has expressed no problem with that so why is Trump acting like a petulant child regarding basic rules of engagement?

                  I cannot be moved by right wing oriented videos and websites, to make your point.

                  1. profile image0
                    PrettyPantherposted 10 months agoin reply to this

                    The Conservative Twins. Are they for real? They look like a Colbert skit making fun of conservative shock jocks.

                    Holey Moley.

                    1. Credence2 profile image83
                      Credence2posted 10 months agoin reply to this

                      Just like those twin sisters that use to hang around and buzz Trump like a couple of house flies.

                  2. Ken Burgess profile image89
                    Ken Burgessposted 10 months agoin reply to this

                    Fair counter.

                    And as the next debate will likely be a form of Skype or Zoom, I suppose it will be quite easy to incorporate it.

                    Now as Biden would say: "Clap for that you stupid bastards"

    15. Credence2 profile image83
      Credence2posted 9 months ago

      Geez, how can anybody who is anybody screw up on "60 Minutes" ruffling the feathers of veteran correspondents like Leslie Stahl?

      His "handlers" admonished him after the last debate disaster to be on his best behavior to the extent that that is possible.

      He attacks the credentials of the proposed moderator for the final debate. Does his base cheer over his behaving like a toddler? A lot of independent voters can't help but to see what there is not to like.

      This Trump guy is unhinged, regardless of what Trump supporters say.

      1. peoplepower73 profile image92
        peoplepower73posted 9 months agoin reply to this

        Credence:  The "Mooch" says Trump is scared and is using Roy Cohn tactics. Roy Cohn was Trump's mentor.  If he is attacked, he will counter punch 10 times harder to scare the hell out of anybody who tries to come after him. I think he is still on the steroids from his treatment in the hospital, as well.

        1. Credence2 profile image83
          Credence2posted 9 months agoin reply to this

          Kudos, Peoplepower

          Trump and campaign are making the mistake of using the same tactics that worked against Hillary Clinton in 2016. The reality is that they are not working as now is not 2016.

          Now it is time to "move away from the Death Star".

      2. GA Anderson profile image90
        GA Andersonposted 9 months agoin reply to this

        I took a quick Google look and did not find anything that spoke to the perspective of the event. I heard Trump was pissed with the tone of the interview questions, and that he cut it short.

        What did he do? What is the uproar?

        GA

        1. Credence2 profile image83
          Credence2posted 9 months agoin reply to this

          GA,

          https://news.yahoo.com/trump-calls-for- … 53102.html

          A little background: Mr. Trump did not really think that he was going to have an interview on CBS'. renown flagship and be handed a pacifier?

          Yes, you are going to receive tough questions, Mr. President. Because the people demand clear and lucid answers.

          If he wasn't prepared to be candid on the program why bother to participate in the first place? He is pi$$ed when any serious questions are put to him.

          You have to come clean here, this is not a rally atmosphere.

          Walking out implies that the interview did not end on a cordial note, both sides of the interview left before it officially ended.

          I don't see how Trump can continue with the image of being uncooperative at every and any opportunity?

     
    working

    This website uses cookies

    As a user in the EEA, your approval is needed on a few things. To provide a better website experience, hubpages.com uses cookies (and other similar technologies) and may collect, process, and share personal data. Please choose which areas of our service you consent to our doing so.

    For more information on managing or withdrawing consents and how we handle data, visit our Privacy Policy at: https://corp.maven.io/privacy-policy

    Show Details
    Necessary
    HubPages Device IDThis is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.
    LoginThis is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.
    Google RecaptchaThis is used to prevent bots and spam. (Privacy Policy)
    AkismetThis is used to detect comment spam. (Privacy Policy)
    HubPages Google AnalyticsThis is used to provide data on traffic to our website, all personally identifyable data is anonymized. (Privacy Policy)
    HubPages Traffic PixelThis is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.
    Amazon Web ServicesThis is a cloud services platform that we used to host our service. (Privacy Policy)
    CloudflareThis is a cloud CDN service that we use to efficiently deliver files required for our service to operate such as javascript, cascading style sheets, images, and videos. (Privacy Policy)
    Google Hosted LibrariesJavascript software libraries such as jQuery are loaded at endpoints on the googleapis.com or gstatic.com domains, for performance and efficiency reasons. (Privacy Policy)
    Features
    Google Custom SearchThis is feature allows you to search the site. (Privacy Policy)
    Google MapsSome articles have Google Maps embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
    Google ChartsThis is used to display charts and graphs on articles and the author center. (Privacy Policy)
    Google AdSense Host APIThis service allows you to sign up for or associate a Google AdSense account with HubPages, so that you can earn money from ads on your articles. No data is shared unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
    Google YouTubeSome articles have YouTube videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
    VimeoSome articles have Vimeo videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
    PaypalThis is used for a registered author who enrolls in the HubPages Earnings program and requests to be paid via PayPal. No data is shared with Paypal unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
    Facebook LoginYou can use this to streamline signing up for, or signing in to your Hubpages account. No data is shared with Facebook unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
    MavenThis supports the Maven widget and search functionality. (Privacy Policy)
    Marketing
    Google AdSenseThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    Google DoubleClickGoogle provides ad serving technology and runs an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    Index ExchangeThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    SovrnThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    Facebook AdsThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    Amazon Unified Ad MarketplaceThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    AppNexusThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    OpenxThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    Rubicon ProjectThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    TripleLiftThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    Say MediaWe partner with Say Media to deliver ad campaigns on our sites. (Privacy Policy)
    Remarketing PixelsWe may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.
    Conversion Tracking PixelsWe may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.
    Statistics
    Author Google AnalyticsThis is used to provide traffic data and reports to the authors of articles on the HubPages Service. (Privacy Policy)
    ComscoreComScore is a media measurement and analytics company providing marketing data and analytics to enterprises, media and advertising agencies, and publishers. Non-consent will result in ComScore only processing obfuscated personal data. (Privacy Policy)
    Amazon Tracking PixelSome articles display amazon products as part of the Amazon Affiliate program, this pixel provides traffic statistics for those products (Privacy Policy)
    ClickscoThis is a data management platform studying reader behavior (Privacy Policy)