RSN Fundraising Banner
FB Share
Email This Page
add comment
Print

Lund writes: "If it had been anyone other than Donald Trump, it might have inspired something like pity. The first presidential debate of 2016 was nearly totally humiliating, even if it wasn't the humiliation that Hillary Clinton's supporters wished for."

Republican U.S. presidential nominee Donald Trump shakes hands with Democratic U.S. presidential nominee Hillary Clinton at Hofstra University in Hempstead, New York, Monday, September 26, 2016. (photo: TIME)
Republican U.S. presidential nominee Donald Trump shakes hands with Democratic U.S. presidential nominee Hillary Clinton at Hofstra University in Hempstead, New York, Monday, September 26, 2016. (photo: TIME)


Trump Slunk Under the Lowest of Low Bars at the Debate

By Jeb Lund, Rolling Stone

27 September 16

 

Trump could not have conducted himself more poorly

f it had been anyone other than Donald Trump, it might have inspired something like pity.

The first presidential debate of 2016 was nearly totally humiliating, even if it wasn't the humiliation that Hillary Clinton's supporters wished for. Their candidate missed opportunities to deliver a killing blow, instead frequently remaining silent and letting Trump do all the work. No, what was humiliating was watching a candidate, after only a little provocation, completely disassemble his own campaign legend.

Going into last night, the 24-hour news media was determined to set the stakes high for Clinton, low for Trump, remonstrate with themselves for establishing such unequal standards, then keep returning to them anyway.

Clinton had to be commanding without being shrill, empathetic without being a teary woman, knowledgable without being a know-it-all and combative without being defensive. Trump just had to make sure not to murder moderator Lester Holt or call him the n-word.

Instead, Trump slunk beneath the lowest expectations. The man dismissed as the most ignorant, uncivil and unprepared major-party candidate in history could not have conducted himself more poorly if his goal was to vindicate all the haters and losers who bedevil him.

Trump's debate conduct is destined to become a future candidate-training video of what not to do. He sniffed into the mic constantly and grunted again and again. He leaned forward and to the left of the podium, toward Clinton, glowering in between his almost constant interruptions — many of which topped out at repeating the word "wrong." Clearly someone in the Trump campaign must have pleaded with him to not interrupt and reject a woman candidate without evidence and thus reinforce charges of misogyny, and clearly whoever that person was wasted his or her day.

When Holt countered Trump's comments about stop-and-frisk by correctly noting that the practice had been deemed unconstitutional, Trump replied, "No, you're wrong," before elaborating with, "it went before a judge who was a very against-police judge." When presented with his previous comments about Clinton not looking presidential, he tried to pivot to the last few months of conspiracies from the right-wing fever swamps that claim Clinton is afflicted with some wasting disease. (Best guess: chemtrail-induced morgellons.)

"She doesn't have the look. She don't have the stamina," Trump explained. "I said she doesn't have the stamina. And I don't believe she does have the stamina. To be president of this country, you need tremendous stamina." That pop you just heard in your head was a lightbulb going off at the idea of starting an ironic Trump-wigged Bon Jovi/Ratt/Survivor/Poison/Journey cover band named Stamina.

The most ironic part of the assertion is that, by this time, Trump's stamina had clearly flagged. But the humor of the assertion was dwarfed by his comments from a few minutes before. In order to distinguish himself from Clinton, Trump said, "I have a much better temperament." The audience responded with a sudden surge of laughter. 

On actual issues, Trump was almost entirely a shambles. His answers on nuclear weapons never rose above the level of gibberish. He described America as a third-world country, an assertion rejected by almost any measure of prosperity you can cite. He again asserted that African-Americans and Hispanics are "living in hell," which – America's treatment of minorities notwithstanding – might be news to many of them.

More importantly, Trump appeared completely unprepared to handle the most obvious attacks that would be directed against him.

Trump had no satisfactory explanation for his years of enthusiastic birther conspiracy mongering, and his attempt to obfuscate the issue relied on the sorts of conspiracies familiar only to voters who spend a lot of time reading right-wing websites plastered with ads for dick medicine, gun hoarding and Atabrine tablets. If you already knew who Sidney Blumenthal is, you either already knew that the Hillary Clinton campaign didn't invent the Obama birther rumors, or you are someone who expects Clinton to have Sid rubbed out like Vince Foster and a bunch of Arkansas prostitutes.

Once more, Trump deemed his birther crusade a great success, citing Obama's release of his long-form birth certificate in 2011. Unfortunately, Holt pointed out that "you continued to tell the story and question the president's legitimacy in 2012, '13, '14, '15, as recently as January."

Holt continued, "I'm just going to follow up. I will let you respond because there is a lot there. We're talking about racial healing in the segment. What do you say to Americans—"

"I say nothing because I was able to get him to produce it," Trump said. "He should have produced a long time before. I say nothing, but let me just tell you."

He went on, but the damage was done. When the context of the conversation deals with African-Americans who have watched you malign the first African-American president as un-American, your first response cannot be that you have nothing to say to them.

Trump likewise had no explanation for his refusal to release his tax returns and disclose not only his real wealth but also his overseas interests that may conflict with the responsibility of steering American foreign policy. Instead, he returned to his claim that he was told not to release his returns until the conclusion of an IRS audit. When pressed on the fact that this is total BS, he again said that he would release his tax returns if Clinton released "all 30,000" of her State Department emails.

It's a nice gambit, but it overlooks the fact that releasing tax returns is just something that all major presidential candidates do and have done for decades. Tax returns are part of the job application process. They are not a tool for leveraging extra concessions out of your opponent. You release them or you don't. It's on you.

Even if Trump seemed determined to make the debate a total surrender, Clinton's game wasn't perfect.

Clinton enjoyed moments of real laughter and broke into an irrepressible grin during parts of the night. For supporters, it must have been fun. Clinton is not a natural retail politician, and part of what belies her forced laugh and smile on the stump is the fact that the genuine articles are both unmistakable and charming. That said, you could see the conservative critique forming as her smile lingered and before she burst into laughter and asked, "Why not, yeah why not? Just join the debate by saying more crazy things."

Clinton supporters will note the sexual double-standard: Men always tell women to smile, then get annoyed when they smile without invitation. But while Clinton has been victim to this kind of double-standard for nearly a quarter century, any male candidate would expect to take a few shots for indulging in prolonged self-satisfaction at an opponent's implosion.

It's not wrong that Clinton enjoyed Trump flailing around her; it's just that, by the joyless rules of modern politics, nobody is allowed to enjoy that sort of thing too much. This is more or less the same critique Obama backers leveled at the simperingly indulgent smirk Mitt Romney wore throughout the first 2012 debate, as if he were trying to channel a smile that said, Well, there you go again...

On more concrete issues, Clinton still lacks a convincing policy on trade, an issue that Trump owns this election. Trump effectively criticized her for her support for NAFTA and the TPP, which she only rejected after Bernie Sanders made it politically toxic. No one but Clinton die-hards really believes she plans to keep opposing the TPP, if for nothing more than the fact that Clinton and Obama spent 2008 carping about NAFTA before going on to do fuck-all about it.

Last but not least, Clinton missed a huge opportunity during the exchange about Trump's taxes. Clinton pointed out that Trump's financial statements "for a couple of years where he had to turn them over to state authorities when he was trying to get a casino license ... showed he did not pay any federal income tax."

Trump replied, "That makes me smart."

While America might be a nation of 300 million temporarily embarrassed millionaires who see no problem in principle with evading taxes because they will eventually be in Trump's position themselves, there's a lot to make of a statement like this.

Clinton was on a roll, clearly hoping to get through prepared material, and she let Trump off the hook with all the people who play by the rules. Are they stupid? Are people who obey the law morons? Is everyone who thinks they should pitch in for roads and schools a chump? And how ethical are Trump's smarts? Is he legally paying zero taxes, or is he putting himself on the same plane of financial genius as Al Capone?

In the end, Clinton's few missteps didn't matter, because there was one overwhelming conclusion to be drawn from the night: Trump looked incompetent because he's no longer only standing next to other Republicans.

Aside from the repugnant racism, xenophobia and misogyny, the Trump phenomenon remained amusing for months because it felt like it was engineered in some fouler deity's ironic punishment laboratory. Donald Trump flagrantly made shit up every moment he wasn't bullying everyone around him; it's just that his victims were a bunch of wealthy bullies who'd spent their careers haphazardly making shit up and sliming their way upward like a phalanx of slugs conquering a staircase.

Trump cut through over a dozen Republican candidates like an industrial saw shredding a box of Kleenex, and it couldn't have happened to a more dismal gallery of frauds. After years of complaining about deficits while promoting tax cuts that reduced government revenues by trillions, after years of promoting dominionist Christianity while claiming religious discrimination, after years of claiming to be victims while blaming everything wrong in America on homosexuals and college professors and minorities and Islam, after years of saying whatever the fuck they felt like and repeating it until it sounded true, each one of these blow-dried mediocrities got fired from The Apprentice: Republican Party by someone with even more sociopathic contempt for facts, logical consistency and other human beings than they had.

Hell, it wasn't even difficult. Just coming up with mean nicknames was enough on a stage teeming with their brand of puffed-up prevaricating nincompoopery. Donald Trump wasn't a legendary force, and he wasn't a ruthless killer. He was the only guy with a fork in a room full of inflatable clown punching bags – shoving them and waiting for them to rock back and forth, their fixed idiotic grins leaning into the fatal puncture.

Unfortunately, this debate and the rest of the campaign will be conducted in the closest approximation of the real world that American politics can provide. The record still sort of matters, and most of us can remember history as far back as goddamn yesterday. We remember that Donald Trump can't keep a story straight for 24 hours.

Many more of us can remember back a few decades and realize that even the most dishonest predators elected to our nation's highest office put in time and training to achieve a patina of "not overtly malicious" and the imperturbable expertise of the diligent halfwit.

And while we might not be great at arithmetic, most of us can remember enough of it to realize that ISIS is only a few years old, Hillary Clinton is 68, and when Donald Trump snarls, "No wonder you've been fighting ISIS your entire adult life," it sounds like the most dumbfuck failed political burn in a generation.

And if that's not enough, there's still the colossal mismatch of pitting the least knowledgable, least experienced and least disciplined candidate in history against a woman who is in almost every respect his polar opposite.

The only hope for Trump is that, between now and the next debate, he can develop the focus and dedication to learn the policy, talking points and composure needed to win it. All it will take is his suddenly adopting the seriousness and rigor that he's never displayed at any moment of his campaign or, really, any point in his public life.

Or he could just skip the rest of the debates.


e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 

Comments   

A note of caution regarding our comment sections:

For months a stream of media reports have warned of coordinated propaganda efforts targeting political websites based in the U.S., particularly in the run-up to the 2016 presidential election.

We too were alarmed at the patterns we were, and still are, seeing. It is clear that the provocateurs are far more savvy, disciplined, and purposeful than anything we have ever experienced before.

It is also clear that we still have elements of the same activity in our article discussion forums at this time.

We have hosted and encouraged reader expression since the turn of the century. The comments of our readers are the most vibrant, best-used interactive feature at Reader Supported News. Accordingly, we are strongly resistant to interrupting those services.

It is, however, important to note that in all likelihood hardened operatives are attempting to shape the dialog our community seeks to engage in.

Adapt and overcome.

Marc Ash
Founder, Reader Supported News

 
+109 # Phillybuster 2016-09-27 12:13
Trump looked like a child trying to disrupt the class while Hillary was like the calm, confident, seasoned teacher well-experience d in dealing with bully boys.

Trump's ego won't allow him to skip the rest of the debates. More likely, he'll double down. He will probably tell himself that he wasn't tough enough on Hillary this time and will go after her much more strongly in the next debate. His problem is that the more strongly he goes after her, the worse he looks and the more Presidential Hillary looks.
 
 
+15 # grandlakeguy 2016-09-27 13:46
Virtually every journalist is totally missing the point here.
Yes Trump is an absurd candidate who does not belong in consideration for the office of POTUS but he is a reflection of the pathetic state of today's Republican party which deserves to be put out of it's misery asap.
The exclusion of the 2 minority parties from the dialogue is however absolutely inexcusable.
What happened to free speech?
I feel so much safer that Jill Stein was escorted off of Hofstra University campus while trying to get into the hall (not!).

The real issue should be this:
Hillary Clinton is occupying that stage as an illegitimate candidate! She did not "win" the nomination she was placed there by a thoroughly corrupt entrenched political party that is only interested in protecting the status quo and their corporate sponsors!
As long as I live I will NEVER understand how the American people can stand for the theft of elections whether they be primary or general contests.
It was abundantly clear throughout the primaries that the voters vastly preferred Bernie Sanders and desperately wanted genuine change in our country. The DNC would not allow that and engaged in a wide range of dirty tricks and election theft to deny the will of the electorate.

Hillary Clinton pretends to be a Progressive…
She is not…
She is a REGRESSIVE!

The Democratic party has completely betrayed the very concept of democracy.

Donald Trump did not lose the debate last night…
"WE THE PEOPLE" lost!
 
 
-32 # Tigre1 2016-09-27 15:34
More BS claims, no PROOF. Are you guys ALL the same jerk? Can't any of you ever LEARN anything?

It amazes me that you can still evidently put words one after another in sentences, yet give no FACTS, just more hugely generalized BS claims, most of which could not be true.

You are hopeless. And frankly, I greet that situation for YOU as a wonderful turn of events.
 
 
+29 # grandlakeguy 2016-09-27 16:28
I guess you never read any of the hacked DNC emails conspiring against Bernie.
I guess that you did not see any of the exhaustive reports regarding primary manipulations.
I guess that you did not hear about the tens of thousands of Brooklyn voters from Bernie's neighborhood being purged from the voting rolls.
I guess that you did not watch the video of the San Diego ROV whiting out the Bernie votes before putting the ballots in the optical scanners.
ETC.
ETC.
ETC.
SHAME on any American who supports an election thief!
If we do not have honest elections we have no democracy.
 
 
-3 # Kiwikid 2016-09-28 01:01
Take a rest glg. You're continual bellyaching, saying the same thing over an over (which don't make them true) is driving people away from this site. I've had a spell away because I was sick to the back teeth of a small number of you Hillary haters swamping the site (apparently you don't have lives outside of this increasingly compressed echo chamber). It seems that nothing has changed. I fear for Marc Ash's business model as many others like me check out and look for opportunity to engage in a meaningful way elsewhere. My fear for Marc is that your bile will so pollute this site that it will no longer be financially sustainable.
 
 
+5 # grandlakeguy 2016-09-28 18:14
So it is ok with you that our elections are totally fraudulent?
 
 
+1 # Kiwikid 2016-09-28 23:47
In your mind that is clearly true. There is little I can do about that.
 
 
+3 # rayb-baby 2016-09-29 01:11
Ok or not is no longer the issue Is it ok with you that Agent Orange may end up in the WH unless we all get behind Hillary, as distasteful as that may be to you?
 
 
0 # rayb-baby 2016-09-29 00:47
Exactly!
 
 
+1 # ericlipps 2016-09-27 17:41
Quoting Tigre1:
More BS claims, no PROOF. Are you guys ALL the same jerk? Can't any of you ever LEARN anything?

It amazes me that you can still evidently put words one after another in sentences, yet give no FACTS, just more hugely generalized BS claims, most of which could not be true.

You are hopeless. And frankly, I greet that situation for YOU as a wonderful turn of events.

I sometimes wonder if some of these posters aren't people at all, but instead AI computer viruses released into the Net to poison it.
 
 
+3 # CL38 2016-09-28 18:56
Declaring someone hopeless who comments here consistently with integrity, and resorting to personal insults shows a lack of insight and awareness on YOUR part.
 
 
+2 # rayb-baby 2016-09-29 01:17
There's no integrity in letting Agent Orange win the election.
 
 
-7 # Robbee 2016-09-27 20:01
Quoting grandlakeguy:
Hillary Clinton is a REGRESSIVE!

- more progressive than some - glug glug glug
 
 
-2 # Robbee 2016-09-28 11:51
Quoting grandlakeguy:
Hillary Clinton pretends to be a Progressive…
She is not…
She is a REGRESSIVE!

- glug - you are not the only progressive in the world - you can stop pretending you set the standard
 
 
+2 # rayb-baby 2016-09-29 01:03
Hillary may not be the progressive that you/we prefer, and some of what she is may be status quo, but she is anything BUT regressive.

And as a Bernie supporter, I agree that the DNC did engage in some dirty tricks, but there's no proof that it would have made a big enough difference for Bernie to win without it.

That being said, there's nothing we can do about it now and allowing Agent Orange to win the election is not an option. I'll take my chances with Hillary.
 
 
+2 # librarian1984 2016-09-29 07:10
EJUSA, an organization of statisticians and election observers, estimates that shenanigans took 184 delegates from Sanders. That is the difference between a Sanders presidency and a Trump debacle.

Further, they estimate that the odds of the Dem primary having been fair are 70,000,000,000 to 1 .. against.

Other than that, no problem, yeah?
 
 
-67 # librarian1984 2016-09-27 12:21
People are foolish if they think Trump lost this debate -- seeing what they want to see and trying to get others to believe it -- and the relentless insults to him and his supporters are drumming up GOP turnout. They do realize that, right?

Maybe they really don't. There is a chasm between the media reporting and the citizens, but DC and msm are unable and/or unwilling to perceive this. People watching, especially Trump's supporters, did not see him lose. They saw him stand up to Hillary's lies. They saw him not take any grief.

These authors are the same ones who are going to be flabbergasted when next week's polls come out.
 
 
-67 # guomashi 2016-09-27 13:20
There is no such thing as 'winning' one of these sham 'debates'.
There is just 'who I like'.
Hillary will always lose.
Even her supporters don't like her.
 
 
+12 # ericlipps 2016-09-27 17:43
Quoting guomashi:
There is no such thing as 'winning' one of these sham 'debates'.
There is just 'who I like'.
Hillary will always lose.
Even her supporters don't like her.

But they support her anyway. I wonder why?

Surely it couldn't be because, however little they like her, they respect her and believe she's the best candidate in the race WHO HAS ANY HOPE OF WINNING.
 
 
-7 # guomashi 2016-09-27 18:40
I see you agree that her supporter don't like her.

As for me, I could never live with myself if i voted for a war monger.
 
 
+9 # nogardflow 2016-09-27 21:05
guomashi, at this point you're not voting for Hillary, you're voting for a Supreme Court that will be around for a lot longer than either of these persons. This court has already moved us backwards in many ways, imagine a conservative majority court, all the advances made in, 'rights protection' will be reversed. I can't believe that these two people are really all we have to chose from, but while the choice may be bitter at the least, the consequences of a Republican president is too horrifying to vote otherwise.
 
 
-8 # guomashi 2016-09-27 22:40
The supreme court won't matter if Hillary has her way with Russia and Iran. We'll all be around for the same period of time, which won't be very long.

America chose two pieces of feces to run for president. So be it. Let them eat their own. There is no justification for cramming it down the rest of the world's throat.

I will never vote for a war monger.
 
 
0 # rayb-baby 2016-09-29 01:26
" I could never live with myself if i voted for a war monger."
If Agent Orange wins the WH, you may not have to worry about living at all.

" We'll all be around for the same period of time, which won't be very long."
Can I borrow your crystal ball? I'd love to be able to see the future as clearly as you.
 
 
0 # SusanT136 2016-09-29 14:33
Quoting guomashi:

America chose two pieces of feces to run for president....Let them eat their own. There is no justification for cramming it down the rest of the world's throat.

I will never vote for a war monger.


Whoever wins, the US will be cramming it down the rest of the worlds throat in typical colonial fashion.

Trump has shown no signs he will be less of a war machine than Hillary. He can't answer coherently whether the policy of First Strike should continue or be abated. He's called for Iranian ships to be "blown out of the water" just for taunting US troops.

Trump has no sense of consequences. He's a silver spoon kid who mostly risked other people's money, burning them in bankruptcies. His cult of personality enabled him to keep rolling, as his properties were seen by the banks as more valuable with his name attached. He's a Teflon Don of sorts. That's why his petulant responses ie "blow them out of the water" are likely to initiate world war. What could be easier than a nuke - no approval from Congress, just go for it. Get pissed & push the button.

Hillary, corrupt as she is, wants business as usual. She's a cooler customer than Trump & will cause fewer deaths overall than Trump. Tony Schwartz, who spent 18 months trailing Trump to ghostwrite "The Art of the Deal", believes Trump will use nuclear weapons & initiate the end of civilization as we know it. Hyperbole? Possibly, but this is a guy who spent a huge amount of time with Trump.
 
 
0 # librarian1984 2016-09-27 22:51
Their SCOTUS picks will be the same: pro-free trade, pro-Wall Street, pro-corporate, pro-fossil fuel

That's what those campaign donations and exorbitant speaking fees are about.

I know it's scary to think that BOTH candidates are horrible. But it's true.

Vote to make the world a better place. Vote Green.
 
 
-4 # Robbee 2016-09-28 12:05
Quoting librarian1984:
Their SCOTUS picks will be the same

- lib, you haven't been listening - shape up - pay attention - you parrot a steinbot lie with no basis
 
 
+3 # dbrize 2016-09-28 15:26
Quoting Robbee:
Quoting librarian1984:
Their SCOTUS picks will be the same

- lib, you haven't been listening - shape up - pay attention - you parrot a steinbot lie with no basis

Ha! You are funnier by the day...

Who are you telling to "shape up" you pusillanimous escapee from Wonderland.

Your cowardice in evading direct debate has been a regular feature on RSN.

Not only do you run from debate, you resort to yellow journalistic tactics such as partial phrases lifted out of context from sentences, paragraphs and statements, along with compiling lists off such and passing them off as opinions conjured up from your Wonderland hallucinations.

Other than these afflictions you are probably a fine human being.

Off to your rabbit hole and back to Lewis Carroll Land with you. :-D
 
 
0 # wrknight 2016-10-01 08:53
Quoting ericlipps:
Quoting guomashi:
There is no such thing as 'winning' one of these sham 'debates'.
There is just 'who I like'.
Hillary will always lose.
Even her supporters don't like her.

But they support her anyway. I wonder why?

Surely it couldn't be because, however little they like her, they respect her and believe she's the best candidate in the race WHO HAS ANY HOPE OF WINNING.


No, in spite of their dislike for Hillary they support her simply because they dislike Trump even more.

American voters have this obsession with voting for the "lesser of two evils". Rather than vote for someone they like, they would rather vote for someone they dislike less than the one they dislike the most.

It might help if American voters would explore other voting options - but I don't expect to see that happen in my lifetime.
 
 
-32 # grandlakeguy 2016-09-27 14:11
How about a new title for that article?

HILLARY CLINTON SUNK UNDER AN EVEN LOWER BAR THAN TRUMP AT THE DEBATE!

Every serious analysis of the primary "elections" plus the ever increasing revelations of DNC tampering during those very important few months all point to the same conclusion…
HILLARY CLINTON IS NOT THE LEGITIMATE NOMINEE!

We can all be sure that she knows this to be true and was certainly an active participant in denying the will of the voters.
For her to take the stage fully knowing that she arrived at that point through election theft and dirty tricks is a testament to her low character and total lack of any ethical compass!

That is the definition of slinking under the lowest bar possible.
SHAME ON HILLARY!
SHAME ON THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY FOR DEPRIVING US OF OUR CHOICE!
 
 
-2 # ericlipps 2016-09-27 17:45
Quoting grandlakeguy:
HILLARY CLINTON IS NOT THE LEGITIMATE NOMINEE!

Enough already. Learn some new lines.
 
 
+7 # grandlakeguy 2016-09-27 15:58
Hi librarian…it looks like the budget to hire Hillary trolls has been greatly increased!
Wow…45 thumbs down for you in just a few hours.
I smell desperation in the air from the HRC camp.
 
 
+6 # librarian1984 2016-09-27 17:04
It's fairly impressive! That's a lotta trollz!

Helga had -32 on another thread in under an hour! Good to know where the money goes, eh?

Not like any hungry children in America could use some food.
 
 
+2 # rayb-baby 2016-09-27 22:21
And what kind of a troll are you? Just because someone doesn't agree with your agenda does not necessarily make a troll, unless you're a troll yourself.
 
 
+1 # librarian1984 2016-09-27 22:57
You know that's not what anyone said. The trolls are distinctive, and their existence has been confirmed by numerous reports, so we're not imagining their existence.

So what's your objection? That we call them 'trolls'? What should we call them instead? Teeny-brained mercenaries? Hacks? Politistitutes?

Or do you object to our talking about them at all? Should we pretend they're really authentic supporters of the Clintons? Should we pretend they're not minimum wage drones or low level campaign workers who don't get paid at all?
 
 
+2 # Kiwikid 2016-09-28 01:10
Why not assume that there are those of us that are authentic Hillary supporters? The USA has many millions of us. Why should it seem incredible to you that a few should check into this site? Why do you feel a need to assume they are part of a paid 'rent a mob' scheme? (I can't include myself in 'they' because clearly she would not be paying a nobody from the other side of the planet). Personally I thinks she's amazing! And it's not that I'm naive or ill-informed - I just happen to see differently from you.
 
 
0 # librarian1984 2016-09-28 07:54
NZ in the house! Hope you're well.

Of course there are authentic etc etc. No problem. That's what this forum should be about.

But you are not here that often, K. Trolls behave differently. They do not discuss. They throw conversational grenades and then disappear.

I don't really give a rat's arse about the voting, though the waves of 20 and 30 that are rolling through lately are ridiculous. We know Correct the Record exists, specifically for the purpose of HARASSING DEMOCRATS.

You don't have to be a Bernie supporter to think that's messed up.

But really, trolls may be illustrative but they are trivial compared to the disastrous policies of the Clintons. Yet people aren't allowed to make their own decision. They are harassed. Not in reasonable discussions but abused for months.

Is that how YOU would treat people whose vote you needed?

We know that the DNC and msm colluded to hurt Sanders campaign and there is strong evidence the nomination was stolen. But even when she got what she wanted HRC didn't then try to make amends or court the progressives. She abused Bernie's delegates at the convention, lied about Sanders and his supporters and then chose Tim Kaine (anti-choice!! pro-TPP) for VP and Ken Salazar (pro-fracking) to make 4000 political appointments.

This is one rotten candidate and her trolls only drive that point home.

Neither Clinton nor Trump is good enough to be president.

I've never called you a troll.
 
 
0 # rayb-baby 2016-09-28 01:12
I'm a Bernie supporter and I've been called a troll here and I've seen others that have have been engaged in cogent, rational discussions also called trolls. I stand by my comment. You and others here seem to think that this is a closed community and only those that are exactly like-minded should be allowed in your bubble.
 
 
0 # librarian1984 2016-09-28 07:45
There are certainly some HRC supporters here who can say they engage in rational discussions. You are not one of them.

Further, I deny that anyone here who is engaged in a 'cogent, rational discussion' has been called a troll. That's just false.

In particular, glg and I were discussing the waves that came through and deposited 50, 60, 70 negatives on anti-HRC comments. You think that's not trolls?

You deny being a troll? Great. I never accused you of being one. I look forward to your cogent, rational response.
 
 
0 # rayb-baby 2016-09-29 02:02
I am not one of them?????? I've certainly engaged in rational conversations here. Just because I don't spend 24/7 here like you do (I've got a life outside of RSN) doesn't mean that I'm not engaged.

I've also made it clear that I agree with a lot of what is commented on here. But what I WON'T do is dwell in the past and use that as an excuse to let Trump win the WH. Like it or not, what is done is done and there's nothing we can do about it. There's a new game now and there are ONLY TWO PLAYERS, one of which IS going to end up in the WH no matter HOW MUCH you stomp your feet and rag about things we can do nothing about.

You and a load of other people here would be much happier campers if you get behind Hillary where we at least have a chance of moving the progressive agenda forward. Under Trump, there is ONLY moving backwards and possible destruction for generations to come.

You have two distinct choices. Either get on board, or keep stomping your feet.
 
 
+1 # librarian1984 2016-09-29 07:31
By 'dwell in the past' you mean demand honest elections? So if somone can steal the election and get away with it for a week then we let it go?

I guess that's ONE approach .. but I'm not sure I'd call that democracy.

We differ in who we see as the LOTE. I'm scared witless of Hillary's war plans and ties to Wall Street. I think it's likely Congress can shut down a lot of Trump's idiocy but I don't think they'll even try with the Clintons.

If I thought HRC was the LOTE I would be with you -- panicky. But I'd also be angry with Clinton. She's been a terrible candidate. Aren't you mad at the poor decisions she's made? Not only not to court progressives or millennials, but to brazenly antagonize them? Or deciding to use a private email server? Or giving secret lucrative speeches to WS?

No, raylet, there are FOUR possibilities and I am still voting for peace. If, therefore, Trump is elected, I'm just relieved the Clintons and their oligarch bosses aren't in the WH. Trump will break things. The GOP, maybe the DP if we're lucky.

I believe you're too ready to say there are 'things we can do nothing about'. I believe we can. Remember Bernie citing examples of 'impossible' things that had come anout -- gay marriage, minimum wage increases, etc. All things are possible if we have the will.

I don't trust Hillary to enact any progressive measures. Look at Kaine and Salazar. They are DINOs.

We can't agree but I really appreciate the conversation, ray. Thank you.
 
 
+1 # rayb-baby 2016-09-29 11:14
Yes, we need to fight for honest elections, but we aren't going to change what happened in the primaries. I fought hard for the removal of DWS. At least the courts blocked a lot of the disenfranchisem ent that the Repukes were doing. We continue the fight after the election and do our best to hold Hillary accountable. (Side note: A lot of my activism is on other blogs and FB, which is why you don't see so much of me here)

If we end up with Drumpf and a Repuke congress, he'll sign all of their idiocy and they'll support a lot of his idiocy. Most of what he'll do will be to support his narcissism and the elite. His ignorance of world affairs and his enabling of the alt-right scare me far more than anything Hillary. And NO, there are NOT four possibilities. You're only fooling yourself if you think there are.

Yes, I agree with what Bernie said, but changing what happened in the past is not one of them, which is why he is now supporting Hillary.

Yes, I'm upset with some of the bad things she's done, but she's also fought for and accomplished some good things. We obviously don't agree, but I see her as clearly the LOTE.
 
 
+1 # librarian1984 2016-09-29 12:59
I agree. If Trump wins his laziness will guarantee he becomes a tool of the GOP .. unless he doesn't. He has some pretty sharp underlings. I still don't want him but I'm encouraged by his history of left-leaning positions and the crazy anti-GOP stuff he says. It cracked me up to watch him say we should prosecute D!ck & W, hearing the crowd roar and seeing the looks on the other pols faces. He can do a lot of damage. I think that's the reason the electorate wants to send him to DC.

It took them a long time to wake up but boy were they mad when they did!

If Trump wins I hope it's a Democratic congress. One pundit I saw said since Hillary is courting the GOP voters that might hurt Dems down ticket. If Hillary is elected I don't know what can save us. Dems or a GOP congress will support her, and she wants to go to war.

I don't think this country can afford more war.

He IS a huge conspiracy theorist so I think he'll use the office to find out all he can.

Whoever wins we need to hold their feet to the fire as much as possible, though I don't have much hope that will be effective. But maybe we'll be on the same side :-)

Thanks again, ray. Take care.
 
 
+2 # kyzipster 2016-09-28 09:29
I'm also a Bernie supporter who has been called a troll repeatedly at RSN. Any post I make that hints at Trump being more dangerous than Clinton generally gets many thumbs down. It's immediately interpreted as mindless, pro-Clinton cheerleading even though I'm never complimentary of Clinton or the Democratic establishment.

When their pro-Trump, anti-Clinton posts get the same treatment, they're victims of trolls. It couldn't possibly mean that some of their 'arguments' are lacking the most basic logic and common sense from a progressive POV.

Apparently, even Bernie Sanders arguments for voting Democratic in this election would be dismissed as coming from a troll. It's amusing.
 
 
+5 # Colleen Clark 2016-09-27 17:40
Is librarian1984 really a librarian? If so. (s)he is giving librarian's a bad name.
And what exactly is meant by Hillary's "lies"? I didn't hear any.

Whereas Trump repeated the incorrect information about releasing his tax returns. As Clinton and the IRS etc etc have repeated - per the IRS, which really ought to know!,- being audited is not a legal barrier to releasing one's tax returns.

If he just doesn't want to he should just say so.
 
 
0 # librarian1984 2016-09-27 18:03
And you are giving 'Colleen's a bad name.

Is that a nice thing to say?

I find Hillary supporters are not nearly as nice as Sanders supporters. They give Democrats a bad name. Well .. a worse name.
 
 
0 # grandlakeguy 2016-09-27 20:04
How about this?
When a Democrat becomes a Hillary supporter he/she becomes a REGRESSIVE!
 
 
+2 # rayb-baby 2016-09-27 22:33
So, you guys are saying that the MANY of us who are Bernie supporters but are now supporting Hillary because that's the ONLY WAY TO DEFEAT AGENT ORANGE are now trolls/regressi ves/not nice/ etc. ....... Yeah! That's the ticket!

So when the ship's going down and you guys blow some more holes in it to make sure there's no way of rescuing it, we'll have you to thank for taking us down with you.
 
 
0 # librarian1984 2016-09-27 23:01
Right .. because HRC's loss would be all OUR fault. Nader blah blah. Got it.

Wow, I remember your passionate defense of Bernie, baby-ray (ray-let?), and all the great statements you made about Sanders' agenda .. oh wait. No. I. Don't.

If Trump wins it's the fault of the people who let the second most distrusted candidate in modern history steal the nomination.
 
 
+3 # rayb-baby 2016-09-28 01:26
"Wow, I remember your passionate defense of Bernie,........ No.I.Don't."
If you went back to the time before Bernie was out of the race, you would have seen plenty of times I made supportive comments of Bernie. Just because I'm not a full-time RSN commenter that comments voluminously on practically every article in practically every thread, like you do, doesn't mean I haven't commented many times here ...... and many in favor of Bernie. Unlike you, I have a life outside of RSN. Maybe you should try it!
 
 
+3 # librarian1984 2016-09-28 07:57
I apologize if I misremember your comments. My impression of them is that they are almost always short and abusive.

I look forward to your erudite and illuminating contributions to the discussion in future.
 
 
+2 # Billy Bob 2016-09-28 19:02
Your memory is 100% accurate.
 
 
0 # Billy Bob 2016-09-28 19:03
"If you went back to the time before Bernie was out of the race, you would have seen plenty of times I made supportive comments of Bernie"


Go into the archives and find them for us.

We'll apologize if you can find a few.
 
 
0 # rayb-baby 2016-09-29 02:14
You go look! I know the truth. I don't have to prove it to you.
 
 
-1 # Robbee 2016-09-27 20:39
Quoting Colleen Clark:
Is librarian1984 really a librarian?

- unfortunately hill's posturing convinced librarian that hill will start war with russia - no really

take everything librarian says about hill with a grain of salt
 
 
+3 # kyzipster 2016-09-28 09:33
That seems to be what much of the argument against Clinton has come down to around here, not just from librarian. This is a general sentiment: "Clinton will start WWIII, that's a fact, therefore a Trump Presidency doesn't matter, it may even be a better choice."

Since it's an established fact that Clinton will start WWIII, at least among the 25 or so regular contributors at RSN, any details used to argue against the probable horrors of a Trump Presidency become null and void. Anyone attempting to argue for voting against Trump supports war and mayhem and is unworthy of further consideration because of their weak morals and weak intellect. They're probably a troll. Conversation over.

Strange place. Rather than convince me of their POV, it has only validated my choice to take Sander's advice and hold my nose and vote for Clinton. Not that I needed encouragement from Sanders to make an obvious choice.
 
 
+1 # rayb-baby 2016-09-29 02:25
Oh, don't take Bernie's advice! Didn't you know, he's a troll now.

I'm getting to the point where all I want to do is read the articles and get out of here. Otherwise, it means entering the bizarro world bubble of holier than thou, superior intellect, perfect humans beings where "trolls" like us are not welcome.
 
 
0 # kyzipster 2016-09-29 15:57
Me too, I know it's time to leave this forum but I still drop in on most days, it's addicting to see how the regressive left interprets reality.
 
 
+2 # economagic 2016-09-27 18:39
# librarian1984 2016-09-27 12:21
# guomashi 2016-09-27 13:20

And the negatives on these two comments are but symptoms of the problem they (the comments) describe. (Although after a brief blitz the trolls seem to have beat a hasty retreat (sentence fragment).)
 
 
+2 # Robbee 2016-09-27 20:13
Quoting librarian1984:
Trump's supporters, did not see him lose

- no doubt

but rump converted few independents

bernie is the greatest - but last night it was comforting to see hill stand up to rump - i wonder bernie could have done as well

hill should get a bump in the polls
 
 
-1 # Robbee 2016-09-28 11:56
Quoting librarian1984:
Trump's supporters did not see him lose. They saw him stand up to Hillary's lies. They saw him not take any grief.

- rump solidified his base
he did not expand it
 
 
+28 # Dust 2016-09-27 12:29
The cognitive dissonance displayed by Trump supporters will have them celebrating in the streets regarding Trump's 'triumph', not even realizing for an instant that each one is a Dunning-Kruger Effect award winner.
 
 
+1 # Skippydelic 2016-09-27 14:54
Dunning Kruger 2016! ;-)
 
 
+1 # Dust 2016-09-27 15:15
Bill'N'Opus!!!
 
 
-61 # RMDC 2016-09-27 12:31
This author either did not watch the debates or he just wrote this piece based on talking points email sent out to him and thousands of others by the Clinton campaign. This author misses and misrepresents everything.

To use his own language, only a dumbfuck could have written this drivel. We'll see in a week or so when there's a chance for more polling. My guess is that Trump will edge out Hillary,.
 
 
+3 # Saberoff 2016-09-27 17:31
I don't know if Trump will prove victorious, but I agree that this article is "drivel." What the hell does this quote mean...?

"Clinton supporters will note the sexual double-standard : Men always tell women to smile, then get annoyed when they smile without invitation. But while Clinton has been victim to this kind of double-standard for nearly a quarter century, any male candidate would expect to take a few shots for indulging in prolonged self-satisfacti on at an opponent's implosion."
 
 
+6 # librarian1984 2016-09-27 18:05
Yes! They had to fit a sexist criticism in there, didn't they? It's a rule.

ooo, RMDC! -47, nice job.
 
 
+6 # lfeuille 2016-09-27 18:24
Clinton has equally been the beneficiary of a double standard that says any criticism of a woman in politics is automatically gender bias. It has allow her to smear her opponents without being called to account by the press. Exactly what she did to Bernie.
 
 
-1 # RMDC 2016-09-27 18:48
saber -- it does not mean anything. This dumbfuck is just masturbating with words. That's pretty much what this article is. This is the lowest form of journalism so far. I'm glad that RSN posted it because it shows the direction that the HillTrolls are going. By next month they will have slunk even lower -- right about crotch level so all Jeb Lund will have to do is open his mouth.

What kind of a dumbfuck name is Lund, anyway. Here's what the Urban Dictionary says: "Top Definition. lund. Just the local Hindi word for a penis. Can also be used to denote a totally despised person. George Bush is a lund." In short, a dickhead. His momma named him appropriately. This author is a real lund.
 
 
-4 # Robbee 2016-09-27 20:54
Quoting RMDC:
it does not mean anything. This dumbfuck is just masturbating with words


- masturbating with words? - # RMDC 2016-06-15 18:38
Reform is not possible. All we can do is wait for the internal rot to grow and reach the point at which the regime collapses.
 
 
-34 # jimmyjames 2016-09-27 13:13
Trump triumphed on the subject of trade imbalances and lost jobs in America due to ignorant trade policies. Because he was mostly unscripted such as Hillary was, he looked weaker in the later parts of the debate. Because he had a low bar to achieve victory, he may call his effort "good enough". I hope Trump comes out swinging in the next debate. Hillary is vulnerable on so many issues.

Of corse, I would never vote for either of these two clowns. They are both liars....
 
 
+43 # Sunflower 2016-09-27 13:33
A number of people have been wondering if Trump snorted coke before going on-- would explain the sniffing and perhaps more.

I thought the article was a hoot!
 
 
+5 # ktony 2016-09-27 17:53
Quoting Sunflower:
A number of people have been wondering if Trump snorted coke before going on-- would explain the sniffing and perhaps more.

I thought the article was a hoot!

I agree about the article, and I had the same thought about coke when Trump kept sniffing on such a regular basis.
 
 
+13 # amycbobh 2016-09-27 13:36
I sort of hoped she'd hit him with her purse or someone would pull out the power line connected to his mike.
 
 
+42 # Ray Kondrasuk 2016-09-27 13:44
Tweet from the ever-irreverent Bill Maher:
"...word on the debate hall floor is that
Melania just left with Bill Clinton..."
 
 
-14 # Anonymot 2016-09-27 14:09
Of course there are people with differing opinions on RSN as there should be, but someone from Hillary's camp, Debbie maybe, certainly sent us a record number of her trolls today. Are they getting terminally worried or just lording over her win at last night's debate?
 
 
+4 # grandlakeguy 2016-09-27 14:46
They should be worried.
HRC is a terrible candidate and more and more Americans are realizing that she is not the legitimate candidate.
If Trump triumphs the DNC has only itself to blame.

As an American who morns the death of democracy in our political system I can NEVER vote for a candidate who knowingly engages in election theft to achieve his/her goals.

I will vote for Jill Stein.
(Not that I expect our votes to be accurately counted or reported!)

Joseph Stalin famously said:
"Elections are not decided by those who cast the votes, they are decided by those who count the votes!"
Hillary and her DNC handlers have learned this lesson from Stalin and G W Bush!
 
 
-5 # Tigre1 2016-09-27 15:43
Old Joe Stalin also said that "I just gave the capitalists enough rope to hang themselves. They will."

h\hE WAS, OF COURSE, COMMENTING ON THE HUGE AMONT OF MONEY HE GAVE Freddie Koch to start the so-called "Conservative Revolution"...w hich, due to the family's unflagging concentration on subversion and alienating of citizens from the U.S. government, has become so successful that CrookedTrump can ask the current Russian dictator for help in the presidential election...and the so-called 'conservatives' don't even catch on that they've been used by enemies of the U.S.
It's ALL public record. Why don't you look it up sometime?
 
 
-3 # Caliban 2016-09-27 15:08
So speaks a TRUMPIE TROLL.
 
 
+6 # lfeuille 2016-09-27 18:28
If it was a win. She won the journalists, but we'll have to wait to see if she won the public.
 
 
-17 # black lamb 2016-09-27 14:24
The Rolling Stone has been whoring for Hillary from the beginning of this election period.

A friend told me the Rolling Stone is selling bumper stickers that bear a photo of a 1940s "pinup" and urge us to "Join the Rolling Stone, folks: Whore for Clinton."

Of the circa 20 polls I have read, only two have Clinton winning the debate by a significant margin. One other has her winning by about 2 points. Of the rest, most show Trump beating Clinton by more than 5 points. The majority Trump beat her by more than 10 points.

An ABC News poll stated that Trump won the debate 81.64% to 18.36%. And it said
Donald Trump, Jill Stein, and Gary Johnson lead Hillary, who is in 4th place.

Trump 54% (26,601 votes)
Jill Stein 21% (10,548 votes)
Gary Johnson 15% (7,456 votes)
Clinton 10% (4,727 votes)

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2016/09/shock-post-debate-poll-hillary-clinton-takes-4th-place-abc-news-poll-behind-jill-stein-gary-johnson/
 
 
+8 # mmc 2016-09-27 15:10
black lamb, you are living in your own alternative universe.
 
 
+8 # black lamb 2016-09-27 15:46
A few OTHER debate-poll results:

CNBC: Trump 61% Clinton 39%

The Hill: Trump 59% Clinton 36%

Breitbart: Trump 75.75% Clinton 24.25%

NJ.com, True Jersey: Trump 57.43% (143,607 votes) Clinton 37.86% (94,666 votes)

Drudge Report: Trump 81.41% Clinton 19.59%

TIME: Trump 56% Clinton 44%

International Business Times: Trump 58% Clinton 36%

Fox News: Trump 61.43% Clinton 33.7%

CBS: Trump 57.7% Clinton 42.3%

WCPO Cincinnati: Trump 60% Clinton 35%

The San Diego Tribune: Trump 66% Clinton 34%

WKRN TV Nashville Trump 63.23% Clinton 36.77%

Slate: Trump 54.3% Clinton 45.7%

Fortune: Trump 51% Clinton 49%

MLive Michigan: Trump 52.21% Clinton 47.79%

Variety: Trump 51.47% Clinton 48.53%

PIX II: Trump 54.52% Clinton 41.35%

The Washington Times: Trump 71% Clinton 22%

Only two polls (CNN and AOL) have Clinton winning by a significant margin. When I wrote my previous comment (black lamb 2016-09-27 14:24), one other poll had Clinton winning by about 2 points. That poll result has changed, and now has the outcome a tie.
 
 
+6 # RMDC 2016-09-27 16:20
b lamb -- thanks for this. It is really important. In the face of overwhelming facts, the Hillary Trolls are marching onward. If they keep telling themselves that Hillary is winning and pulling farther and farther ahead, they can keep their jobs as Hillary surrogates.

I was not going to watch the debate but I did anyway. It was clear to me that Trump did much better than Hillary overall. She looked like she had memorized a list of "gotcha points" and she repeated them one after another, pretty much no matter the questions. Trump simply iterjected "you are wrong" or "not true" or "what's your source" That was enough to dump Hillary's point in the trash.

I would never vote for Trump but he is proving to be a better candidate than Hillary,
 
 
+4 # black lamb 2016-09-28 02:05
I wondered precisely what explained how the CNN poll clashed very drastically with the average of other polls (except AOL's). A few minutes ago found the explanation:

"The CNN poll was...was heavily weighted toward Democrats (41 percent of respondents versus 26 percent GOP) in a sample size of only 521 registered voters." https://propagandaguard.wordpress.com/2016/09/28/insiders-trump-successfully-executed-debate-plan/

The same explains the latest Reuters national poll. See my comment at black lamb 2016-09-27 14:10 posted under the article published at http://readersupportednews.org/news-section2/318-66/39373-reutersipsos-poll-clinton-moves-ahead-in-florida

The Reuters bias is well and widely known.

I am continuing to research the explanation of the AOL poll. I anticipate it will be the same: pro-Democrat sampling bias.
 
 
+2 # rayb-baby 2016-09-29 02:48
Even Faux Noise, YES, FAUX NOISE admitted that the internet polls are illegitimate.

" The online surveys are not scientific and, in many cases, supporters of either candidate can cast multiple ballots."
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/09/27/online-polls-declare-trump-debate-winner-despite-media-consensus-for-clinton.html
 
 
+2 # black lamb 2016-09-28 02:19
A MATTER OF AN ANGLE OF TRUTH

I urge all that you read this:

http://www.counterpunch.org/2016/09/28/debate-nights-biggest-lie-was-told-by-lester-holt

Also published here:

http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/commission_on_presidential_debates_not_a_nonpartisan_organization_20160927
 
 
+1 # kyzipster 2016-09-28 09:41
"But The Daily Dot suggested online results from about 70 debate polls were particularly egregious because Trump supporters “artificially manipulated” the results “to create the false narrative” that he won.

Trump supporters using Reddit and 4chan message boards bombarded the online polls and spread the effort to Twitter to catapult the hashtag “#Trumpwon” to the No. 1 trending topic.

Established pollster Neil Newhouse says online surveys encourage a “stuffing the ballot box” mentality."

http://nypost.com/2016/09/27/online-polls-showing-trump-won-the-debate-were-rigged/
 
 
+1 # rayb-baby 2016-09-29 02:54
Oh, come on, now! Your comments about internet polls don't count. The only truths here that matter are those that show Hillary as a horrible person and a loser.
 
 
+1 # librarian1984 2016-09-29 13:04
It's pretty obvious the Trump people were ready to do some serious online ballot box stuffing.

It's puzzling that Hillary, with her army of trolls, didn't think of that too.
 
 
-9 # Tigre1 2016-09-27 15:46
You're such a silly, blackiewambiepammie.

'Wishful thinking' hardly covers your current fantasies. Who is feeding you this crop of lies, again? And why, in the name of Heaven, are you so eager to trot out such lies?
 
 
+8 # black lamb 2016-09-27 15:59
Tigre1 2016-09-27 15:46

Look above, at my comment posted at black lamb 2016-09-27 15:46.

Is THAT "wishful thinking"? A "fantasy"? A "lie"?

Where is YOUR evidence that might rebut the list of debate poll results?
 
 
-1 # rayb-baby 2016-09-29 02:57
You want to believe what you want to believe even if it's a bunch of illegitimate lies.
 
 
-1 # economagic 2016-09-27 18:47
Sounds like more trolls. It's hard to tell who's what, increasing the inherent danger of the situation.
 
 
+14 # vt143 2016-09-27 14:34
The fact is the "debate"changed NO ONE'S mind.

Trump supporters LOVE hearing him say "Wrong" "Wrong!" and bluster on about absolutely nothing. They love the bluster. He could be reciting a table of random numbers with emphasis and they'd marvel at him. And Hillary is still the corporate shill she always was and doesn't have any bedside manner.

How can a nation 300+ million citizens winnow it all down to these two sad cases as our candidates for the nation's highest office? I turned off the TV ten minutes into the debate and will never watch another one these debacles again.
 
 
+7 # black lamb 2016-09-27 16:04
vt143 2016-09-27 14:34

A major poll suggests that the debate will alter the voting of about 50% of likely voters.

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-poll-debate-idUSKCN11W0AS

http://www.newsmax.com/Headline/Poll-Half-Voters-Debates/2016/09/26/id/750154/

I do not trust the polling source (Reuters) to predict accurately, but the poll is respectable evidence that the debate will bear substantial effect.
 
 
+10 # Johnny 2016-09-27 16:58
Let's hope the debates drive the great tv-watching masses to the Green Party.
 
 
-1 # rayb-baby 2016-09-29 02:58
HAHAHAHAHA! Wishful thinking!
 
 
+20 # Eliz77 2016-09-27 14:43
I looked at a variety of reports. The rite wingers thought Trump won, the liberals thought Clinton won. It is concerning to me that someone as careless and racist as Trump is considered informed on policies and jobs. That the way he mumbled and interrupted was standing up to Hillary is proper action is the opinion of people who watch too much Jerry Springer where discussions and debates deteriorate into shouting matches where nothing is really heard and no agreements can be made.
I don't like how the Dems burned Bernie, but Hillary is a politician and she can be influenced by the people if we can focus and stay organized to push her away from war and Wall St. policies. So she does not bother me as much as Trump who will not pay any attention to anyone but himself and money.
 
 
+5 # black lamb 2016-09-27 16:22
Eliz77 2016-09-27 14:43

"The rite wingers thought Trump won, the liberals thought Clinton won."

False.

See my comment posted above, at black lamb 2016-09-27 15:46.
 
 
+20 # reiverpacific 2016-09-27 14:51
And many Americans wonder why the rest of the developed world doesn't take the US politically seriously!
They must ha' been gobsmacked by this sham encounter.
 
 
-1 # mmc 2016-09-27 15:17
Trump does not "own" the trade issue. As with many things, there are some good and bad with every trade agreement. But the legitimate arguments for or against any trade agreement must be based on facts: every statistic/"fact " that Trump throws out when he talks about trade is either a lie, made up, or both. In the first or second debate, the moron even thought China was part of the Trans Pacific Partnership--in fact the TPP was created to combat China on trade issues.
 
 
+6 # economagic 2016-09-27 18:50
I take it you are either an officer of a transnational corporation or a classical-tradi tion economist.
 
 
0 # rayb-baby 2016-09-27 23:49
The fact that you made what appears to be a sensible, non-biased comment and yet garner a majority of thumbs down only PROVES the 100% irrational bias of MANY of the RSN readers. I'm surprised that they haven't called you a troll or Hillarista ........ as they're about to do to me.
 
 
+9 # Citizen7 2016-09-27 15:40
I watched the debate with enough cynicism to feel kind of sorry for Trump, with his obvious lack of preparedness--n ot that that's anything unusual, given his own self-satisfied membership in the category of "the uneducated" that he was so quick to profess his love for. But I was bored by Hillary's all-too-expecte d polished political platitudes; our status quo trajectory is ecocidal enough on its own without any help from Trump's minions.

I would have liked to see Jill Stein answer the question about race relations--with its clear connection to the ongoing police shootings of black people--by calling for an immediate legalization of marijuana across the board (which she has done by email), and decriminalizati on of possession of small amounts of all the demonized "drug war" substances--the reby freeing up the police go after real crimes in a responsible way. Unfortunately, she didn't say this when she had the chance on Democracy Now!
 
 
+13 # Dumbledorf 2016-09-27 16:30
If you watched last night's debate, you were a living witness to history in the making-- the worst presidential debate in the history of America took place. Nothing, and I mean nothing, compares to the sheer stupidity of both candidates in not addressing the REAL ISSUES destroying this REPUBLIC!

The staged, "debate" was, in fact, an insult not only to intelligence but simple common decency!

Trump wasn't just ignorant, he was a basket case, unable to form a simple coherent sentence containing a complete thought.
He rambled like someone high on drugs not knowing what to say or how to say it. He constantly changed subjects in mid sentence and conveyed a sense of desperation and confusion.

KIllary, on the other hand, just stood there smirking in her high conceit, assured that her criminality would be ignored.

As I watched this debacle, this farce and fraud of a "debate" unfold, I along with other Americans thought: "Who the hell are these people trying to kid?" Never have I witnessed such a display of ignorance and deceit.

Yes, folks, you had better consider a few things right now. And you can take your fake, phony "Neo-conservati sm" and fold it five ways. You do not understand what form of government we are supposed to UPHOLD and worse, MOST don't even care.
IF ELECTIONS CHANGED ANYTHING THEY WOULD BE ILLEGAL!

SEE
Kennedy v. Nixon--1960 ( REAL Educated men debating the issues of the day! )
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KgV7muq3o3Q
 
 
+6 # bardphile 2016-09-27 17:08
We don't have to go back to 1960 to recall a much higher standard of political debate. During the primary season, Sanders and Clinton were exemplary by comparison to the Republicans. If last night was a "farce" and an insult to intelligence and decency, and it was, don't blame Hillary. Put it on the Dumpster, who pulls every discussion down to his level.
 
 
+2 # RMDC 2016-09-27 18:25
dumble -- I agree with you but I mostly hold Lester Holt to blame. He asked silly questions. He thought he was on some good morning america show with gossipy questions and tabloid-style subject areas.

It would be nice to have a better moderator but that does not seem in the cards. The two parties and their Debate corporations want to dumb things down. That's advantages Hillary. She's not really very smart.

He should be called Lester the Dolt.
 
 
+3 # dbrize 2016-09-28 21:06
Quoting RMDC:
dumble -- I agree with you but I mostly hold Lester Holt to blame. He asked silly questions. He thought he was on some good morning america show with gossipy questions and tabloid-style subject areas.

It would be nice to have a better moderator but that does not seem in the cards. The two parties and their Debate corporations want to dumb things down. That's advantages Hillary. She's not really very smart.

He should be called Lester the Dolt.


Lester is a pretty nice guy who is adequately telegenic, reads well from the teleprompter and knows who he is working for.

We can be sure he was following orders both direct and implied.
 
 
+16 # Johnny 2016-09-27 16:55
The performance of the two clowns made it obvious why the oligarchy excluded Jill Stein from the debate. She would have shown what fools the two fools are.
 
 
-8 # ericlipps 2016-09-27 17:56
Quoting Johnny:
The performance of the two clowns made it obvious why the oligarchy excluded Jill Stein from the debate. She would have shown what fools the two fools are.

Don't be any stupider than you have to be. Jill was excluded because, like Gary Johnson, she failed to hurdle the bar of 15% support in the polls which was established well before this debate. Ask yourself honestly why that is.
 
 
+10 # librarian1984 2016-09-27 18:07
She was excluded because TPTB don't want anyone to vote for a third party candidate, and if people hear what Stein has to say it will become apparent that there actually IS someone worth voting for.

Can't have that now.
 
 
+9 # economagic 2016-09-27 18:53
"the bar of 15% support in the polls which was established well before this debate" . . . for the purpose of excluding anyone who might make clear the insanity of both sides of the duopoly.
 
 
+7 # tedrey 2016-09-27 17:03
Just warning you folk that there are fake polls out there (the "gateway pundit" one that Black Lamb cites is a clear exanple); "abcnewsgo.co," is NOT the real ABC site, "abcnews.go.com ."; there were pages directing voters to numerous polls suggesting people vote in all of them.

Be sceptical, don't jump to conclusions, there's some real trickery going on out there and it's coming from more than one direction. I sure don't know who to believe.
 
 
+5 # librarian1984 2016-09-27 18:09
I thought those numbers looked weird. Good catch.

So wtf is the deeper game? Geez we have gone down the rabbit hole.

I'm hoping they'll slip psychedelics into the water system too. For old times sake.
 
 
+5 # Billy Bob 2016-09-27 19:50
We have to rely on ourselves, and each other.

There's no one left in the MSM that we can really believe anymore - unless someone like Naomi Klien is a representative of the MSM.
 
 
+1 # librarian1984 2016-09-29 13:06
I feel like I need to move to a cabin in the woods with a few years' worth of supplies, 4 or 8, I'm thinking :-)
 
 
+2 # black lamb 2016-09-27 20:53
tedrey 2016-09-27 17:03

"...abcnewsgo.co," is NOT the real ABC site"

I did not cite or rely on abcnewsgo.co. I cited
http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2016/09/shock-post-debate-poll-hillary-clinton-takes-4th-place-abc-news-poll-behind-jill-stein-gary-johnson/

Perhaps the truth is that when YOU (and other Hillary-shills) face an intractable painful political reality, you deny it by claiming reality is fraud. Do you deny also the validity of all the other polls I cited, at black lamb 2016-09-27 15:46 (above)?

Consider an observation Capro-Lupo put in a comment he posted regarding another RSN article — Capro-Lupo 2016-09-27 20:34, at http://readersupportednews.org/opinion2/277-75/39374-scoring-the-debate-how-clinton-beat-trump-round-by-round

"Any competent statistician would deem significant and "confidence" warranted the large proliferation of polls and polling outcomes that black lamb referenced. [I have taught statistics and written large statistics texts that are published in respected journals and are widely considered compelling.]"
 
 
-3 # tedrey 2016-09-27 22:09
I reported you correctly, Black Lamb. I wrote 'there are fake polls out there (the "gateway pundit" one that Black Lamb cites is a clear exanple)' . . . and anyone who goes to it can decide for themself if it is an honest or credible page. Anyway, the truth will come out.
 
 
+1 # black lamb 2016-09-28 02:21
tedrey 2016-09-27 22:09

Your words, exactly: "Just warning you folk that there are fake polls out there (the "gateway pundit" one that Black Lamb cites is a clear exanple); "abcnewsgo.co," is NOT the real ABC site, "abcnews.go.com...."

Your comment posted at tedrey 2016-09-27 17:03
 
 
+8 # BlueMorpho 2016-09-27 17:36
I had other plans last night. It seems I didn't miss anything other than an upset stomach.
 
 
-14 # ericlipps 2016-09-27 17:51
Ditto. I had better ways to waste my time. For instance, posting on RSN in response to foam-mouthed Hillary-haters, which is self-abuse if ever anything was but sometimes fun anyway.
 
 
-3 # ktony 2016-09-27 17:58
I wish that those here who throw "troll bombs" at others with such depressing regularity, would think, and think again.
 
 
+1 # economagic 2016-09-27 18:55
Yes, but unfortunately that is an oxymoron -- or SOME kind of moron!
 
 
-1 # rayb-baby 2016-09-28 01:39
If you say something that doesn't comport exactly with those in the elite, "intellectual" bubble that requires their secret code to enter, you are automatically banned to the RSN trollniverse.
 
 
+5 # grandlakeguy 2016-09-27 20:07
There is no more reason to believe official MSM polls than there is to believe official election "results".
If Jill Stein did indeed actually meet the 15% threshold do you think that it would have been reported?
 
 
+7 # janie1893 2016-09-28 02:09
Trump said he has plans re ISIS but is keeping them secret. Does anyone believe this?

RMDC--Mr. Holt did a fine job! Trump tried to get under his skin a couple of times but Holt displayed great dignity and forbearance.
 
 
0 # Robbee 2016-09-28 09:58
Quoting janie1893:
Trump said he has plans re ISIS but is keeping them secret. Does anyone believe this?

- jill has a secret plan to win the election - don't run as dem - jill is our stealth candidate for office!
 
 
+1 # indian weaver 2016-09-28 07:23
No, Hillary and Obama slunk under the lowest of bars. They are both simply better liars and smarter than Trump. After all, Obama has allied with ISIS to wipe out Syria, and has allied with Nazis to destroy the Ukraine. Obama, to put it simply and obviously, is an ISIS Nazi, the most horrible war criminal ever to exist on this planet he is destroying.
 

THE NEW STREAMLINED RSN LOGIN PROCESS: Register once, then login and you are ready to comment. All you need is a Username and a Password of your choosing and you are free to comment whenever you like! Welcome to the Reader Supported News community.

RSNRSN