The Presidential Debate, "Episode 1: The Phantom Menace" Megathread

[garbon]

She looked very presidential.  However I'm beginning to wonder if Trump wouldn't be a better choice, despite his obvious stupidity.  If she wins, considering how little trust she garners, she might end up with another Republican dominated congress. The Obama mouth frothing will simply morph into Hillary frothing - after the nigger the cunt - that sort of thinking.  Which means your country will be paralyzed for another 4 years.

Whereas if he wins, and considering how little faith the Republican apparatus puts in him - he's likely to be opposed but not so completely or viciously as Oballary would be.  And that means the US could at least try to get out of the lurch it's mired in.  At this point immobilism is worst than anything.

You remember when we had a stupid Republican President (Bush II) and a Republican Congress?  That was a disaster.

Yeah, sometimes "they can't get anything done" is a good thing.

Well Trump might be best on that. After all, given that he can't even rally his own party around him, I feel it would be a mistake to say he wouldn't be as viciously opposed as Hillary. She at least has Dem politicians on her side whereas I'm not sure Trump has all that many allies in the Capitol.

[Siege]

Before i get accused by Raz and Grumbler of plagiarism. This below aint mine.


On "income inequality", Trump need only bring up a few points:

No one ever got a job from a poor person.

The "rich" already pay the lion's share of taxes, well above 70%.

Please define what you mean by "fair share" when you consider that nearly 50% of workers pay nothing at all.

Most "rich" people don't sit on their money but build businesses or invest in businesses which create jobs which allow people to have incomes and families and homes.

Taxing the "rich" out of some misguided Marxist concept of "fairness" doesn't much harm the rich because, well, they're rich. But it does harm the poor because businesses will inevitably pass on those costs to the consumer which hurts the poor more than any other group.

Government "jobs" are a fiction since all the money to pay people must come from taxation or debt or the printing of money out of thin air, all of which are harmful to the economy.

If the government confiscated every dime from every "rich" person in the Country, it would not even pay the deficit for one single year. And after that, the Country would collapse since all private businesses would be broke and cease to exist.

[mongers]

Did anyone's opinion change after the debate?  Not just switching from supporting Trump to Clinton or vice versa; but was anyone planning to vote third party but now will vote for Hil or Don?  Or was anyone planning not to vote but will now (or planning to vote but now will not)?

It's all confirmation bias now; Trump's not going to lose anybody, so I think the only real expectation is trying to keep potential Clinton voters from staying home, or being all Millennial stupid and piss their votes away on Stoner Nader.

What, he's running?   

[Josephus]

My  favourite bit was when she accused him of not paying taxes and he remarked "I'm smart."

[garbon]

Before i get accused by Raz and Grumbler of plagiarism. This below aint mine.

Well yes, that is trickle down economics in so many words. The very thing that Clinton was accusing Trump of espousing.

[garbon]

My  favourite bit was when she accused him of not paying taxes and he remarked "I'm smart."

It was a nice setup too for when he complained about a lack of money to pay for things, she could give a snarky reply that perhaps if he paid income tax there might be funding.

[Martinus]

Before i get accused by Raz and Grumbler of plagiarism. This below aint mine.

Well that's good because I would think less of you if it was. Whose is it, though? A high schooler who read "Atlas Shrugged"?

On "income inequality", Trump need only bring up a few points:

No one ever got a job from a poor person.

Actually, ironically, both Trump and Hilary are trying to get a job from a whole bunch of poor people.

The "rich" already pay the lion's share of taxes, well above 70%.

Probably depends on how you define the "rich", but it is unlikely to be true in absolute numbers, as it is well known that the majority of tax income in any normal economy comes from the middle class. Or are you saying the share of their individual income? In which case it is also unlikely to be true. I know because it is part of my job to make sure this is the case.

Please define what you mean by "fair share" when you consider that nearly 50% of workers pay nothing at all.

Who is this addressed to? Is this a question to the previous question? Some sort of inner dialogue?

Most "rich" people don't sit on their money but build businesses or invest in businesses which create jobs which allow people to have incomes and families and homes.

Actually, again would need to see stats on that, but a lot of "rich" people invest money in businesses in order to improve their efficiency and sell them on with profit - which can reduce jobs as often as it creates them. Again, unless you mean M&A lawyers like me - I have a decent income and three homes because I help them do so.

Taxing the "rich" out of some misguided Marxist concept of "fairness" doesn't much harm the rich because, well, they're rich. But it does harm the poor because businesses will inevitably pass on those costs to the consumer which hurts the poor more than any other group.

This seems to confuse costs and revenues of a business (where the passing of costs to customers can happen) with taxing the dividend paid out to the rich, which is not cost to businesses, so not sure there is a clear correlation. Besides, whatever happened to free market? Shouldn't it correct the price increase?

Government "jobs" are a fiction since all the money to pay people must come from taxation or debt or the printing of money out of thin air, all of which are harmful to the economy.

Most private businesses take on debt, too, to finance their activity...  The rest of the statement is rubbish.

If the government confiscated every dime from every "rich" person in the Country, it would not even pay the deficit for one single year. And after that, the Country would collapse since all private businesses would be broke and cease to exist.

Well, then it's good that noone is advocating this!

[Kleves]

Trump didn't have any gigantic flubs - he didn't soil himself on stage or call Obama the n-word - so it's tough to see why any of his mouth-breathing supporters would reconsider their views now.

[garbon]

Trump didn't have any gigantic flubs - he didn't soil himself on stage or call Obama the n-word - so it's tough to see why any of his mouth-breathing supporters would reconsider their views now.

I don't think they are the ones of concern. It is the ones that have leaned to him in the polls in the last couple weeks.

[FunkMonk]

No one gives a shit about the 20% of American voters who would support Trump if he walked on stage wearing a giant swastika on his chest shouting "SLAVERY WAS GOOD"

What he should be angling for are the softer parts of the Republican electorate, making sure they stick with him and don't vote for Johnson or, God forbid, Hillary Rodham Clinton.

[grumbler]

The dichotomy in Trump's position is that he simultaneously argues that
(1) the rich should get ricer, so they can invest in new jobs, and
(2) the country's biggest problem is that the rich only create jobs in Mexico and China.

Trump wants to reward those who have created the biggest problem he can see, and he has no real plan to stop the money he takes from the middle class going to new jobs overseas.  His idea of starting a trade war so as to wipe out all savings through inflation seems insane.

[garbon]

Apparently Trump has said that he wasn't sick and any noise was because of issues with the mic. He didn't want to get into conspiracies but wondered if it was purposefully that way.

[grumbler]

Before i get accused by... Grumbler of plagiarism. This below aint mine.

I didn't "accuse" you of plagiarism, I noted your plagiarism.

On "income inequality", Trump need only bring up a few points:

No one ever got a job from a poor person.

The "rich" already pay the lion's share of taxes, well above 70%.

Please define what you mean by "fair share" when you consider that nearly 50% of workers pay nothing at all.

Most "rich" people don't sit on their money but build businesses or invest in businesses which create jobs which allow people to have incomes and families and homes.

Taxing the "rich" out of some misguided Marxist concept of "fairness" doesn't much harm the rich because, well, they're rich. But it does harm the poor because businesses will inevitably pass on those costs to the consumer which hurts the poor more than any other group.

Government "jobs" are a fiction since all the money to pay people must come from taxation or debt or the printing of money out of thin air, all of which are harmful to the economy.

If the government confiscated every dime from every "rich" person in the Country, it would not even pay the deficit for one single year. And after that, the Country would collapse since all private businesses would be broke and cease to exist.

I assume that you took random quotes from a series of bumper stickers, because the only thing more striking than the fundamental dishonesty of this collection of statements is its incoherence.

And it is ironic that a government employee is arguing that his job is a fiction; since you have time to post bumper sticker slogans online, it must be true!

[Kleves]

No one gives a shit about the 20% of American voters who would support Trump if he walked on stage wearing a giant swastika on his chest shouting "SLAVERY WAS GOOD"

What he should be angling for are the softer parts of the Republican electorate, making sure they stick with him and don't vote for Johnson or, God forbid, Hillary Rodham Clinton.

I think anyone that supports Trump, however tepidly, has either made their peace with the fact that he knows nothing of policy and is contemptuous of the truth, and/or thinks HRC is the literal anti-Christ. I don't think he was humiliated enough Monday night to change these people's minds. Thinking people capable of evaluating the debate independent of Sean Hannity/Rush Limbaugh/etc. already are against Trump.

[The Minsky Moment]

Before i get accused by Raz and Grumbler of plagiarism. This below aint mine.


On "income inequality", Trump need only bring up a few points:.

He's not going to do any of that.
Because Trump intends to spend a lot more $$ - on roads, on child care, etc.
He also intends to cut corporate tax.

Which means either one of two things must be true:
1.  He will increase personal taxes
2.  He will default on the debt.

Pick your poison.