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.
Well, it certainly wasn't the listener or the country!
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
You were surprised?
I am surprised that you were surprised. lol
My surprise was the degree of the president's complete disregard for the moderator and rude ignoring of the debate rules.
You should have kept watching the fiasco. Biden was just as bad after about the second segment.
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.
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).
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).
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.
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.
I never heard or saw Biden say he has switched his plan to Bernie's Medicare for All. A quick Google search did not reveal such a switch. Same with The Green New Deal.
Then my confusion must be due to a misrecollection of his campaign rhetoric and the media's portrayal of it.
It is true that Biden reached out to Sanders, Warren, et. al., and incorporated some of their ideas, resulting in a more left-leaning platform, but he did not simply switch to Medicare for All or The Green New Deal. Of course, to hear Trump, the right-wing media, and their loyal citizen parrots describe him, he's sits in his basement taking marching orders from Antifa, BLM, AOC, the New World Order, and Portland rioters.
But at least with Biden at the helm, those to left of him will have the opportunity for some input.
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?
Biden needs to be careful about that for sure because part of the reason Hilary Clinton lost the 2016 election was that not all the liberals supported her. But then again at the time, Trump was also a fairly unknown commodity for most people, and he was anti establishment candidate that people were craving for. Not sure he'll have the same appeal this year because some people might see him as part of the establishment now more than anything, so we'll see.
Clinton lost because she was the embodiment of the establishment, and the people who were irate with the establishment in 2016... probably are still just as annoyed with the DC elitism in 2020.
Trump's antics may have grown old for some, but for others his four years may have been very good for them, which explains the growing support for him in various demographics that usually just get in lock-step with the Democrats.
The Big Issue I have right now, is what does Biden bring?
He was just as "deplorable" as Trump last night, with his comments of "just shut up", "you are a clown", constantly giving that derisive laugh.
If people were looking for more dignified, more "adult", more intellectually articulate and respectful demeanor, I didn't see it in Biden.
Biden is an establishment hack, he represents everything that made a large percentage of the populace vote for Trump... and he seems to be trying to outdo Trump in exaggerations, deflections, insults, etc.
If all the Democrats have to present to America is the likes of Clinton and Biden... we don't deserve better than Trump.
"Clinton lost because she was the embodiment of the establishment..."
I have always thought the same thing. It was not so much a vote for Trump but a vote against the "powers that be" and the status quo.
And the Democratic party has done nothing to change that perception of them. Still the same status quo, with people far removed from understanding the needs of the common man or the nation. They aren't running for President, but the governors and mayors allowing, encouraging and even participating in the riots across the country is the public perception of Democratic party, and a great many people are absolutely disgusted with it.
Maybe you've been partaking of the wrong media, GA. ;-)
As a Bernie and Liz supporter, I have no choice. Trump is so revolting that you can rest assured that we will and must grab at any alternative straw we can. That will generate enthusiasm in itself.
There is always room to work, as the left leaning flank, with Biden, but he has to be elected first.
We, as Democrats, won't make the mistake of again being divided in the face of an intolerable threat, not this time.
What does that mean exactly, "Democrats won't make the mistake.....not this time?"
What I meant is that the progressive wing of the Democratic Party went lukewarm on Hillary Clinton in 2016, a candidate that was not my preferred choice.
By the resulting lack of enthusiam reflected at the polls, we made possible an opening for Donald Trump to be elected President.
We cannot allow our internecine squabbles to keep us from supporting Biden, warts and all.
That cannot and must not happen again.
No, an opening for Trump was made, because Barack Obama sought to "fundamentally transform the United States of America."
Trump was brought in because Government was grown beyond the limits of the Constitution, creating an ugly underbelly of corruption.
Trump was/is America's attempt at reversing what time and bad leadership has created.
I respectfully disagree with that assessment, thus the differences between Left and Right.
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.
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?
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.
It always seem like the Democrats are the ones asked to "take the high road" always turning the other cheek in the face of outrages by the other side.
The President of the United States behaved as a beast on the national stage Last Monday night. There can be no spin, no excuse to mollify Trump's behavior which was more than unacceptable and clearly the most abrasive of all three men on the stage.
Then Biden's other option would be to meet fire for fire, low-road for low-road. I think that is what he tried to do and I don't think it worked well for him.
Someone should remind him of my favorite Mark Twain quote..
I must have missed it, GA, what is your favorite Mark Twain quote?
When has Biden ever taken the "low road" in politics?
The Democrats under the "moderates" remind me of the classic scene in the film "Animal House" where two pledges to a fraternity were taking the paddle and each was saying to their tormentors, "thank you, Sir, may I have another"?
Continuing to allow the Republicans to engage in unethical behavior without any resistance is akin to that.
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?
That is what Trump is hoping for, if he loses the popular vote and the Electoral college he can go trotting to his rigged rightwinged court who would have more fealty to Trump than the law, to have him declared winner, regardless.
And even if the Dems take congress and the executive, what good is it?
Republicans are anything but bipartisan in attitude and approach, Biden would not have a chance getting any agenda through as the candidate that won the support of the voters. The Republicans would just "crybaby" over to its rightwing tribunal to attempt to unravel everything.
So, Biden cannot be a pu$$y and must be prepared to change the amount of justices in the court to retain the balance before the seats were stolen. He must do whatever else is necessary to keep the Republicans on a leash. Because, that is what they have already done to Democrats. The same lesson that Obama painfully learned, so now, the gloves are off.
Like I said before, if the political parties can not operate in Washington based on mutual respect and protocol, then we will see each other in hell, and we will all go there together.
"So, Biden cannot be a pu$$y and must be prepared to change the amount of justices in the court to retain the balance before the seats were stolen."
Explain "stolen" seats, please? Explain how the Constitution, or other laws, were violated in "stealing" those seats?
I'm going to try to put this in perspective for everybody. Trump was asked do you support white supremacist groups? It is an easy answer...yes or no. But Trump asked what group...give me some names...and Biden answered Proud Boys. That was all Trump needed to pivot from a simple yes or no answer to putting everybody down a rabbit hole.
Trump and his supporters claim everybody wants to go back to work and go back to school. The reply should be, we don't send sick people to work and school. Even with proper testing, people can test negative one day and be asymptomatic and still infect others. The Tennessee Titan football players tested positive for the virus, but were asymptomatic. So they cancelled the next game.
Sending people back to work and to school without having proper testing is very simplistic in my view and is also a way of continuing the spread of the virus. Trump is overriding all experts so that he can claim victory over the virus, but at the same time he is putting people at risk...but he doesn't care about that as long as he can claim a victory. He think he needs a victory to help get reelected and put a feather in his MAGA cap.
Never in the history of congress has the excuse that Mcconnel provided on the death of Scalia ever been used to keep a sitting President from his Constitutional obligation to appoint a new justice 8 months prior to the election. Yet he feels compelled to change that approach to fill a seat within 6 weeks of an election when it is to their advantage? The excuse he makes justifying the double standard based upon who happens to be in control of congress, is just that, an excuse.
AND it won't stand..... The gloves are off....
1 "Suppose you were an idiot, and suppose you were a member of Congress; but I repeat myself."
2 "Never argue with stupid people, they will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience."
3 "Laws control the lesser man... Right conduct controls the greater one."
Ordinarily, I would stay in the middle of the road and make you guess what quote I meant, but I am so disappointed with this debate that I will veer toward the ditch and tell you the quote:
"Never argue with an idiot. They will drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.”
Skipping through your comment points, I completely disagree with your Supreme Court nominee thought. I view the nominated judge as more than qualified—regardless of her labeled ideology. I truly believe she will adjudicate by the law and the Constitution. That you demean her as a partisan hack choice doesn't serve you well.
"He must do whatever else is necessary to keep the Republicans on a leash. Because, that is what they have already done to Democrats. . ."
". . . then we will see each other in hell, and we will all go there together."
And there we are. The good of the nation be damned. You did it so I will do it, and the good of the nation can go to hell, and that is good enough for you.
Why be disappointed? I like the air to be cleared, I find it therapeutic and comforting.
I am not against the Supreme Court nominee, as much as the timing and the rush-rush nature of the confirmation.
As I told you before, we are of different opinions regarding how we see the manner of conservative verses liberal leaning justices and their varied style of jurisprudence.
What you and so many conservatives continue to miss is that if there are no rules or when the rules that do apply only benefits your side then there is no point in "playing the game', and that attitude applies in a broader way across the spectrum of American life, and encompasses much of my attitude over subjects that I frequently "bitch" about, and that can almost be considered human nature.
Without equality, protocols and such, the fibers that hold the "system" together unravel and this idea of nationhood unravels with it. So if we want to keep everybody working together, NONE of us should DO IT.
First, a clarification. When I said "I am so disappointed with this debate. . . "I was talking about the Presidential debate, not our dialogue—which your statement seemed to say is how you took it.
Skipping to your closing line; "So if we want to keep everybody working together, NONE of us should DO IT."
That has been my point all along, but I don't change that thought to 'it's okay to do it now because they did it first' when someone does do it. If it was wrong before it is still wrong after.
We are either liberal or conservative. I'm morally a liberal, but I'm fiscally conservative. I don't like the name liberal because that does not really connote who we are. On the other hand conservative does denote who they really are.
I would rather be called a progressive than a liberal. By the way, "connote" is an implication while "denote" means you literally practice conservative values. But there is also a continuum of how far left or how far right one is...just my two cents.
Well, if we must adhere to labels, to my consternation, I fit the definition of 'classical liberal'
I think I am a conservative-leaning guy, but I miss the Conservative checkmarks on a few ideologies. ;-)
I'm kind of like you - fiscally a conservative and morally a liberal. I've been told I'm a libertarian as a result.
"That has been my point all along, but I don't change that thought to 'it's okay to do it now because they did it first' when someone does do it. If it was wrong before it is still wrong after."
None of that can work when one side by breaking rules and ignoring protocols batter the other side out of existence. Like in any game there has to be penalties for any one side breaking rules over and over consistently.
Would you be as conciliatory if sides and complaints were reversed?
When conservatives ultimately get what they want through any means, of course they are going to tell me "let bygones be bygones" but that is not good enough an answer for our current political crisis.
"Would you be as conciliatory if sides and complaints were reversed?"
While the thought may be far removed from the thought processes of the far leftists, most people can tell right from wrong and refuse to participate in or copy actions they deem as wrong. The "anything goes" mentality of the far left has not spread to everyone yet.
"Would you be as conciliatory if sides and complaints were reversed?
I don't know if "conciliatory" is the word I would use, but I would still hold the same view—two wrongs don't make a right. If it was wrong for you to do it, but you still did it, doesn't make it right for me to now do it.
I will put it simply then, if you do not want someone to punch you in the nose, you best refrain from doing it yourself.
Right or wrong that is the way people and groups tend to react.
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?
I think she knows what you mean.
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.
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.
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 )
I was not impressed with the outcome, would love to see them give it another go in a different format.
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.
Agree. It is clear Trump has the self-control of a toddler who needs his nap.
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.
Yeah - a format where the moderator can turn off their mic.
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. :-)
How do you remain neutral as a moderator when one of the participants is violating the agreed upon rules of the debate?
Both participants did talk over each other to be fair.
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.
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.
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.
Yes, a much different format and another moderator.
Kudos to you, GA, for being fair-minded.
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.
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.
Perhaps they could get one of these Proud Boys to moderate the next one.
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
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)
So, let's review: worst, cheating, lies, chaos.
Those adjectives describe Trump's presidency pretty well, IMHO. It also describes the man pretty well.
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.
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?
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...
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Perhaps in the next debate they can stand in glass booths and if they interrupt, the moderator turns their microphone off.
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.
Well, let's see. Trump, the President of the United States, wouldn't condemn white supremacists.
Well, unless you're a white supremacist. I hear they're high-fiving it all over social media.
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!
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.
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.
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,
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?
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.
Now that you mentioned Portland.
“I have Florida. I have Texas. I have Ohio. I have, excuse me, Portland — the sheriff just came out today, and he said, ‘I support President Trump,’” Trump said at the debate.
The sheriff of Multnomah County, Ore., which includes Portland, quickly refuted President Trump’s claim of an endorsement during Tuesday night's first general election presidential debate.
“As the Multnomah County Sheriff I have never supported Donald Trump and will never support him,” Sheriff Mike Reese responded on Twitter Tuesday night.
The sheriff added: “Donald Trump has made my job a hell of a lot harder since he started talking about Portland, but I never thought he'd try to turn my wife against me!”
Yes, Sheriff Reese didn't hesitate to refute Trump's lie. And that's exactly right. Trump has done nothing for Portland except pour gasoline on the fire.
It would be interesting to hear the president's explanation for that.
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?
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.
No. Biden mentioned Proud Boys. Wallace asked him to condemn white supremacists and right-wing militia. He didn't.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
Well on the bright side, at least last night's debate helped make this awesome video with Weird Al Yankovic.
Btw, it also helped the Lincoln project.Ha!
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.
I see this thread has gone straight to the gutter.
What a horrible thing to say about the President of the United States.
Great link. Almost made up for the pain of watching.
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?
You didn't "get" my comment at all.
....and to be clear I would never say anything like that about any President, jokingly or otherwise.
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. ;-)
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.
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?
I saw the debate, I think Biden did very well and Trump looked tense. Biden scored.
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.
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
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:
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.....
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?
"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?
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.
https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate … proud-boys
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.
"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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
'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.
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.
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?
"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.
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?
Lame from your perspective.
When you start looking into it, consider too that the Senate was controlled by Republicans at the time.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
You are entitled to your own assessments, of course. I am offering mine. So, yes, I am often disappointed. Such is life. [shrug]
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.
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.
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:
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
"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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
The Conservative Twins. Are they for real? They look like a Colbert skit making fun of conservative shock jocks.
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"
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.
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.
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?
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?
by Susie Lehto 6 years ago
After THUMPING Clinton in Monday night’s debate, Trump headed to the sunshine state for a YUGE RALLY in Melbourne, Florida. (National poll has Trump 46.7% and Clinton 42.6%: http://www.latimes.com/politics/ ) After Trump's plane landed something magical happened.A gigantic bolt of lightning...
by The General Conservative 7 years ago
Should a Presidential debate moderator be neutral? Or should they act as a fact checkers?Take a moment to follow my page for political hubs and engaging questions! Thank you!
by Scott Belford 7 years ago
There were two distinct debating styles on display last night on Sept 26, 2016.How do you describe what in on?
by k12rswow 11 years ago
When Romney caught Obama regarding "a terrorist act in Benghazi" and then pointed out the White House didn't make that known for 2 weeks.Tomorrows headlines will be buzzing.
by Stevennix2001 3 years ago
Before anyone else opens up a forum about this, and I know the debate is still going on. Who do you think won this year's final presidential debate of this year?
by Susan Reid 11 years ago
This is from FORBES. I am posting the whole article for your consideration:In tonight’s debate we saw a transformed Barack Obama, and it made a very big difference. In the first debate Governor Mitt Romney was relaxed and confident and in command; Obama was practically absent. Tonight, Obama was on...
Copyright © 2023 The Arena Media Brands, LLC and respective content providers on this website. HubPages® is a registered trademark of The Arena Platform, Inc. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. The Arena Media Brands, LLC and respective content providers to this website may receive compensation for some links to products and services on this website.
|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This 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.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We 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 Pixels||We 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.|