T Nation

The First Presidential Debate

Trumps “not-going-there” last point

When Clinton opened up the “sexist” stuff on Trump near the end of the debate; it was clear that Trump was ready to pounce. (He’s done it on the stump).

While I think that there was “some” sincerity in Trump wanting to “take-the-high-ground” and not bring up President Clinton’s womanizing; the Lewinsky scandal; and most importantly Hillary’s vicious attacks on her husband’s accusers, etc…I just think that it would have just made him look bad, with very little up-side.

Trump DID take the high-ground here…but I’m sure his Inner Beast was saying “Unload on this Bi-otch!”


Agree 100%.

I think that we will see that this will continue to be a very close race.

Forgot about that one. She said cyber security was one of the biggest threats the next president will face. WOW, ding ding ding, opportunity here! Blast her for having an unsecure private server.

to me it didn’t come off that way. When asked about why he commented on how Hillary doesn’t “look” presidential he said that he was going to say a lot worse things but held back. Ok? So at heart you’re an asshole, but we should be glad this one time you held it back? Hardly a defense, especially after explaining the other times he had made fun of women’s looks by the fact that they deserved it.

Real clear politics is my go-to. I don’t hope for unbiased sources, but read the spin both sides put on it. Hannity/MSNBC is too much, but CNN vs. Fox usually works. I agree with you on the Kelly Files, but anything Fox I wouldn’t consider truly balanced.

A radio show host who I’ve found to be extremelly intellecuatly honest is Michael Medved and I try to listen when I can.

Surprised this is on fox:

1 Like


Douglas E. Schoen has been one of the most influential Democratic campaign consultants for over thirty years. Douglas E. Schoen has served as a pollster for President Bill Clinton.

Don’t even disagree with his article, but come on. If Priebus wrote an article saying Trump kicked ass, I would say the same thing.

Same here, Drew.

I try as best as I can to “balance” my sources; but it’s almost impossible for there to truly be an unbiased source.

Also as you said; some sources are just “too much”.

Last night, I wanted to get Hannity’s own take on Trump bringing up his name in the debate (he was on after “The Kelly Files”). I could only take about 10 minutes of the Right-Wing “Bro-Fest” with Trump, Gingrich and Giuliani.

I don’t even click on MSNBC.

1 Like

Ya, that’s why I’m surprised it was on fox.

Agreed that it is hardly a defense, but why defend something you aren’t doing?

As for his previous statements about specific women- I agree. Rosie O’Donnell is a pig. Some women are in fact clownish attention whores. Aside from it being not very nice, why retract specific statements about certain people? There is no benefit to that. In trying to un-ring a bell most people just look like they are caving to pressure from a special interest, and I don’t see how it would be any different if he did it.

I don’t understand. He said she doesn’t have the looks to be president. That is the doing. His defense was that he didn’t say something worse.

So that it doesn’t remain an issue and move one. Or change the topic. literally anything would work, expect saying “ya, well, they deserve it”. Similar to how he responded to the question about what he would say to people who are upset about his roll in birtherism, especially after the certificate was released. “I say nothing” is not a good response, especially when you knew the question was going to be asked.

This thing was painful to watch. I honestly felt like I was losing brain cells. But I have to agree with the Fox News article, Schoen may be a dem pollster, but it was an easy debate to analyze

He is one of their commentators.
And I will say that I have no problem with it, as it allows them to stake some claim to attempting to be more balanced.

But my wife will tell you I am the sweetest husband, best provider, and most exciting lover ever.
The neighbor down the street might night be slightly more objective.

Just saying he is too close to the fire.

Ok probably should knock off and do some of that ‘providing’.

1 Like

So it’s ok to fawn over someone like Brokaw did over Obama when the measuring tool of “looking presidential” came to the forefront, but not ok to say something that is neutral, and in many peoples opinion- true?

Is it somehow a derogatory to say that someone doesn’t look presidential?

Depends (as most things). In this situation, yes, I believe so.

You have to understand the circumstances of the fact that she is the first potential female president and bringing up looks in any way is a not a good thing. She has plenty of holes in her character, policy, or failures during her tenure. Attack that, why focus on her looks? To me, it comes off the wrong way and is derogatory.

I can make fun of Trump’s hair and his orange skin all day with the comedians but her doing it to him is childish and a no-win situation. I believe the same is for him and her looks.

Edit: After it happened with Fiorina I didn’t think he would do it again. Of all the candidates he says both of the females don’t have the look to be presidential. He’s already struggling with the female vote, not very smart attack in my opinion.

Winners: Arby’s
Losers: All of America


Trump did well for the first half hour, then Hillary went after him. By putting him on the defensive, he wasn’t able to bring up the Clinton Foundation, emails, server, taking foreign money from countries who punish woman and gays, and some other issues.

I did love how Hillary made an underhanded suggestion that everyone is racist…

When talking about race-relations in the country, and the shootings of black men by police officers, debate moderator Lester Holt asked Mrs. Clinton: “Last week you said that we have to do everything possible to improve policing to go right at implicit bias. Do you believe police are implicitly biased against black people?

Mrs. Clinton replied: “I think implicit bias is a problem for everyone, not just police. I think unfortunately too many of us in our great country jump to conclusions about each other and therefore I think we need all of us to be asked the hard questions ‘why am I feeling this way?’”

Oh, do I?

So we can judge people using an arbitrary standard like “Looking Presidential”, but only in a good way, and certainly not if they are Hillary Clinton- because she is Female?

Am I picking up what you are putting down incorrectly, or does it just look bad when I type it out like that?

I see what you’re saying and I agree with you. If we are pursuing gender equality in our society, then it means it should apply in every aspect of our society.

I will let Bill Burr explain it.


Just because…


One of the many reasons I really like Bill Burr.