Clinton v Trump on “Climate Change” – will they even mention it tonight? Take the poll

The candidates could not be farther apart

Walter Donway writes:

I recently published a personal manifesto on the controversial question—a.k.a. adult pillow fight—of global warming/climate change. The weather used to be a safe topic of conversation, avoiding politics and religion, but now epitomizes the type of divisive political question that scuttles family reunions. Critics of “Big Climate Alarmism,” and I am one, compare it point for point with religious dogma. In reply, advocates of the view that CO2 generated by man’s activities is heating up the Earth’s atmosphere, with potentially calamitous consequences, assert that anyone who fails to see the Big Truth is like those wackos who deny that the WWII Nazi-extermination-camp Holocaust ever occurred. Who would have thought that discussing the weather conditions of not tomorrow but in 2050 could end lifelong friendships?

I am not going to debate global warming/climate change, here. I have another agenda.

In the 2016 U.S. presidential campaign, which at present demands our breathless attention to personal health issues, Clinton’s email servers, Trump’s admiration of Russian dictator Vladimir Putin, Trump’s Obama “birther” obsession, and Clinton’s supposed deceptions, there nevertheless are remarkably—even startlingly—clear differences between the candidates that bear upon the future of the Great Republic and the world.

One example is the candidates’ positions on global warming/climate change. True, through the angry noise of the campaign, amplified in the echo chambers of the media, I barely discern any substantive issue. And yet, five minutes of Googling reveals a stark and (yes!) well-articulated, black-and-white difference between the candidates.

Yes, something is at stake when the chattering classes, including our candidates for president in 2016, have a difference of opinion over “Big Climate Alarmism.”

What characterizes Hillary Clinton is pride in what the Obama administration has accomplished in the McKibben “war of the worlds” scenario. Her position is that more must done, building on these policies, and must be done urgently.

Donald Trump is a “global warming denier.” To me, that begins to sound like an honorable designation. He seems to understand in an easy, commonsensical way that the climate changes; he understands that theories of climate change evolve; and he understands that one live scenario—advanced by solar scientists, now in disrepute for contradicting Big Climate alarmism—is that we face a coming ice age. And that to devote all resources on the basis of a national emergency to mothballing fossil fuel energy, and to erecting a worldwide structure of wind and solar power, would leave humanity utterly naked and unprepared for a new ice age Victims of the fatally wrong decision for humankind, promoted by the scientists it had come to trust, who really only wanted to be accepted by their peers and make a good living.

But Trump does not buy either scenario. He says, as quoted, “Let’s see.” But, for now, he says, do not make the American economy and jobs hostage to weather forecasting 50 or 100 years into the future.

Follow the link the read the rest of this article,


So the big question, will they even mention climate at all tonight?

Advertisements

228 thoughts on “Clinton v Trump on “Climate Change” – will they even mention it tonight? Take the poll

    • I voted for Trump. He might say something like: ‘the US shouldn’t waste the taxpayers’ money on the climate change nonsense; instead we should concentrate on eliminating poverty and diseases among the unprivileged. With Clinton you would get bogus climate change tax, no climate change taxations with the Trump administration’.

      • I recommend Trump propose “practice what you preach” laws and rules for research grants. A college or university must certify that its officers and faculty do not attend academic conferences except those held as video conferences, as a precondition for research funding. Likewise, all non-profit groups promoting reduced carbon, would have their tax-exempt status revoked unless their members attended only those eco-confabs held in a video-conference form. Trump could note that such laws and rules would prevent those, who fervently believe that their fossil-fuel travels to/from their little Gaia gab-fests KILL BABIES!!! and KILL POLAR BEARS!!!, from conducting their murderous activities on the taxpayer dime–no grab-ass, brazen-hypocrite, carbon-piggie hive-swarm being worth even one dead baby or even one dead polar bear.

        And, of course, Trump could point out that academic conferences, held in a video form, allow Third World women Climate Scientists of color from impoverished nations to participate in such conferences on an equal footing with that tight-knit, good-ol-boy net work of privileged white dorks, technically of the male persuasion, who currently run the Gaia-hustle show as a taxpayer-funded, perks-magnet, CO2-spew, frequent-flyer, jet-set, goof-off normative closed-shop.

    • I’m not going to watch whatever it is that is supposed to be happening tonight.

      I was under the impression that there was to be a debate. They haven’t actually had a Presidential Candidate debate in all the years I have been in the USA, which is since the Kennedy era; so I don’t expect that there will be one now.

      These days they seem to have a quiz, along the line of the spelling bee, where each appearant is given a different question and is asked to spell out their answer to that question.

      And of course it would never be fair in a spelling bee to ask somebody to spell a word that somebody else already spelled.

      Usually in a debate, the two parties are given a common proposition; like ” What are you going to do. should you become President of the United States. It could be divided into acts or movements or episodes, so each party could respond , as the other spells out its positions.

      But I’ll likely be watching the Wuhan Women’s Open from China.

      I’m not planning to do anything at all in response to what these two combatants say; and I’m not authorized to choose one over the other. But I sure as hell do hope that those who do have that privilege choose wisely.

      The consequences are likely to be at least as dramatic as choosing the wrong cup to drink from the fountain of immortality.

      G

    • Environment and climate has become another surrogate victim group for Imternational socialism. The Clintons and Obama is involved.

    • The Vision of the Anointed

      The Vision of the Anointed is a book by economist and political columnist Thomas Sowell challenging people Sowell refers to as “Teflon prophets,” who predict that there will be future social, economic, or environmental problems in the absence of government intervention …

      Sowell asserts that these thinkers, writers, and activists continue to be revered even in the face of evidence disproving their positions.

      For one explanation of why the BS persists, consider Listen Liberal by Thomas Frank.

      Frank points out that the Democrat party has embraced a new, well graduated, elite. They don’t have to listen to anyone else and will believe anything said by other members of the elite because they are where they are based on their merit.

      Another book worth consideration is ‘Expert Political Judgment: How Good Is It? How Can We Know?’ by Philip Tetlock. He shows that experts have no skill predicting the outcome of complex systems. A dart-throwing monkey does better.

      So, we have this well graduated elite running things even though they are wrong more often than they are right. Why is this?

      I will not recommend that most people read The Master and His Emissary. It’s a slog. The author makes the point that too many of us operate predominantly in our left brains. The trouble is that the right brain supplies context and operates as our BS filter.

      What happens to people whose right brain is disabled? They underestimate the difficulty of projects and are usually disappointed with the results of their efforts.

      We are taught to analyze everything using our left brain skills and to worship experts who do so. We are never taught to critcally evaluate the track record of such experts.

      Society is in a very bad place and it is largely the fault of our colleges and universities (except, of course, for the schools of engineering).

      • cB, we have the well edjucated elites running things these days because of demographics. Obama recieved a smaller share of the white vote in 2012 than Dukakis did a quarter century earlier in 1988. Intellectuals never had a chance in the past. The present (and the future) is a whole new ball game…

      • afonzarelli says: September 26, 2016 at 3:43 pm

        … edjucated … Intellectuals never had a chance in the past …

        Thomas Frank refers to the new elite as well graduated rather than well educated. link

        There are darn few women’s study graduates that I would dignify by calling them intellectual.

        America was founded by intellectuals. The period was called the American Enlightenment. The difference is that the intellectuals then didn’t worship theory and didn’t think complexity is a good thing. They were smart, wise, and well educated. Today’s so called intellectuals are just smart.

  1. In my opinion, the only way the issue comes up, is if the moderator brings it up.
    Since the moderators will no doubt be in their usual “protect the Democrat” mode. There’s no way they are going to bring it up since the issue is a big loser for Democrats.

    • Trump will bring up CAGW when he jumps Hillary’s arse about her promising to put coal miners out a job and coal operators out of business in order to save the world from the deadly effects of Climate Change caused by CO2 emissions from burning coal.

  2. What a biased post. Accuses Trump of several things then for Hillary’s lies they are labeled “supposed deceptions”.
    Here it the paragraph that looks like it was taken from MSNBC or the DNC:
    “In the 2016 U.S. presidential campaign, which at present demands our breathless attention to personal health issues, Clinton’s email servers, Trump’s admiration of Russian dictator Vladimir Putin, Trump’s Obama “birther” obsession, and Clinton’s supposed deceptions, there nevertheless are remarkably—even startlingly—clear differences between the candidates that bear upon the future of the Great Republic and the world.”

  3. Clinton is only a voice machine ( with bad research )
    Trump is a player, he loves pressing buttons, ( and the voice machine has hundreds of thousands )

  4. we have more to fear from the contents of Hillary’s diaper than CO2. The contents of her digestive system
    have all the possible diseases and horrors as the mythical Pandora’s Box, no pun.

    • Lets hope he does. Trump will be well briefed on China and India COP21 and the Obama China foolishness (essentialy commiting US to economic suicide) and that plays to his jobs, his America first, and his energy cards.
      Hillary would counter with Obama like climate nonsense and Trump could then call her out with simple facts. Observed sensitivity half of modeled. Except for a rapidly cooling 2015 El Nino blip, no warming this century. Models falsified by absence of tropical troposphere hot spot. SLR not accelerating unless you ignore tide gauges after 1979 and stick on provably too high (because of the closure problem) sat alt. Arctic ice has not disappeared. Planet has greened. Renewables are impossibly intermittent; Germany’s Energiewende has doubled electricity prices but has not cut emissions at all because of necessary brown coal backup. Hillary’s 500 million solar panels would be made in China, and won’t work at night…

    • If he’s doing his job according to the ordinary rules, he will leave the facts and fact checking to the debaters. In this case, we don’t know what the rules are.

      • The rules: Trump must speak while standing on a special small dais paid for by the MSM and provided by Brunswick. Hillary will sit and follow the laser pointer her handler operates. The MSM are all to cheer at everything Hillary says and boo at all of Trump’s responses. The moderator will be neutral, confining himselt to occasional eyerolls, sneers, and disbelieving shakes of his head when Trump speaks. Afterwards, the MSM journalists will vote to determine how badly Trump did, on a scale of minus 10 to minus 20.

    • That is the vote I would have made had that choice been available. I may, after all be one of the 6 or so topics already determined. Another choice should have been ‘yes, it will be brought up, but only in passing and not discussed because of other factors ie insults, jeers, put-downs and irredeemable allegations.

  5. It’s really AD 2100 that they’re all worked up about.

    Trying to predict weather a week from now is widely derided, but stating with 99% certainty the average of weather during the interval 2071 to 2100 is accepted as a matter of faith by the true believers.

    • Gabro…That comment more than any other you have written shows you have not clue about the difference between climate and weather. Let me guess, you are going to vote for Trump. The man who said “The concept of global warming was created by and for the Chinese in order to make U.S. manufacturing non-competitive.” Seems he knows about as much as you do.

      • simon, that comment more than any other you have written shows you have no clue that the weather next week and the “climate” 100 years hence are relying on the same computer models. To miss next week is easily explained and no big deal; to miss next century? well that is the issue isn’t it?

  6. They won’t bring it up because Trump’s common sense on the matter would be more popular. The only ones who agree with Clinton’s climate vision are a very tiny fringe minority of Americans.

  7. Not sure about the global warming item, but there will definitely be no mention of domestic terrorism like recent mall shooters and bomb makers.

  8. Will Trump really shake up Climate/Energy Policy?
    See: Trump picks top skeptic to lead EPA transition

    Donald Trump has selected one of the best-known climate skeptics to lead his U.S. EPA transition team, according to two sources close to the campaign.

    Myron Ebell, director of the Center for Energy and Environment at the conservative Competitive Enterprise Institute, is spearheading Trump’s transition plans for EPA, the sources said.

    The Trump team has also lined up leaders for its Energy Department and Interior Department teams. Republican energy lobbyist Mike McKenna is heading the DOE team; former Interior Department solicitor David Bernhardt is leading the effort for that agency, according to sources close to the campaign. . . .
    Ebell . . .also chairman of the Cooler Heads Coalition, a group of nonprofits that “question global warming alarmism and oppose energy-rationing policies.” . . .
    Ebell has called the Obama administration’s Clean Power Plan for greenhouse gases illegal and said that Obama joining the Paris climate treaty “is clearly an unconstitutional usurpation of the Senate’s authority.”
    He told Vanity Fair in 2007, “There has been a little bit of warming … but it’s been very modest and well within the range for natural variability, and whether it’s caused by human beings or not, it’s nothing to worry about.” . . .

    McKenna . . The president of MWR Strategies is well known in Republican energy circles. He was director of policy and external affairs for the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality under then-Gov. George Allen (R) and was an external relations specialist at the Energy Department during the George H.W. Bush administration. . . .
    GOP energy expert Mike Catanzaro is also working on energy policy for the Trump transition team.

    • Trump makes some good hires. Pense was an excellent choice, and these guys look like good choices, too.

      I guess being a a highly successful businessman, he probably has an innate abilty to measure other people’s abilities and talents, and hire the right folks for the job.

      I sure hope he gets to exercise his expertise on the U.S. economy. A person like him is just what we need to get our fiscal house in order.

      • TA, the big QUE for me is how much Trump actually knows about economics as opposed to business… The federal reserve has already begun the process of raising interest rates to SLOW the economy (as of december 2015). If Trump gets in and doesn’t yank the current fed chair, then the fed will oppose his efforts every step of the way. AND the federal reserve always wins. If Trump ramps up the economy, the fed will simply counter by raising interest rates just as fast. It will be fascinating to watch an emerging Trump economy to see what actually happens…

      • fonzi: “TA, the big QUE for me is how much Trump actually knows about economics as opposed to business”

        Trump appears to me to be a pretty smart, well-rounded guy who is capable of understanding these things. Time will tell. I heard Trump say the other day that he had been studying the NAFTA agreement. As an aside, he said, with a smile, I like looking at stuff like that.” So maybe it’s in his blood. :)

        As for people opposing Trump once he gets in Office: I think Trump is going to do what he has always done: appeal to the People. If the Congress or the Fed obstructs something Trump thinks needs to be done, then Trump will take it to the People, and the People will let their representatives know how they want them to vote.

        Trump won’t have to trash the U.S. Constitution to get his way, he will just convince the People he is correct, and then they will bombard the switchboards of Congress with Congress’ new instructions.

      • What really causes falling productivity growth — an energy-based explanation

        What really causes falling productivity growth? The answer seems to be very much energy-related. Human labor by itself does not cause productivity growth. It is human labor, leveraged by various tools, that leads to productivity growth.

        Productivity Slump Threatens Economy’s Long-Term Growth

        Measure’s longest losing streak since 1979 could keep Fed from raising rates to past levels . . .
        raising rates to past levels
        An employee inspecting an Action Craft Boats vessel at the company’s manufacturing facility in Cape Coral, Fla., on Aug. 2. Nonfarm business productivity, measured as the output of goods and services produced by American workers per hour worked, decreased at a 0.5% seasonally adjusted annual rate in the second quarter as hours increased faster than output, the Labor Department said Tuesday. ENLARGE
        An employee inspecting an Action Craft Boats vessel at the company’s manufacturing facility in Cape Coral, Fla., on Aug. 2. Nonfarm business productivity, measured as the output of goods and services produced by American workers per hour worked, decreased at a 0.5% seasonally adjusted annual rate in the second quarter as hours increased faster than output, the Labor Department said Tuesday. PHOTO: MARK ELIAS/BLOOMBERG NEWS
        By BEN LEUBSDORF
        Updated Aug. 9, 2016 2:33 p.m. ET
        388 COMMENTS
        The longest slide in worker productivity since the late 1970s is haunting the U.S. economy’s long-term prospects, a force that could prompt Federal Reserve officials to keep interest rates low for years to come.

        Nonfarm business productivity—the goods and services produced each hour by American workers—decreased at a 0.5% seasonally adjusted annual rate in the second quarter as hours worked increased faster than output, the Labor Department said Tuesday.

      • TA, the problem is that no one will really know that the fed is obstructing. (people will think that the fed is just doing whateverthehell the fed does). This has precedent with the 2008 Pelosi stimulus. The fed back then was not at all interested in stimulating the economy, but congress was. So pelosi did for 100 billion dollars that which the fed could have done for free. By summer ’08, the fed had deemed the stimulus a success. Inflation was up around 5% (making bernanke nervous) and the fed was actually thinking about canceling out what the pelosi stimulus had done by raising rates. It would have been high comedy were it not for the price tag. If Trump doesn’t know economics (again as opposed to business), then we’re likely to see the same sort of thing. And no one will really know…

      • The economy is pretty much bumping along bottom, and the federal reserve wants to slow it down.
        That thar is scary, I don’t care who you are.

        The real reason why the federal reserve is raising interest rates is to prevent inflation from getting out of control. They are hoping that the economy is doing well enough to withstand the higher interest rates, but they aren’t sure. Neither is anyone else.

      • fonzi, the problem is that government spending never boosts the economy.
        All it does is transfer money from one pocket to another.

      • Hi, Mark, yeah, the fed has begun raising interest rates to stave off inflation. The higher interest rates slow the economy making people poorer, poorer people spend less money and thus demand inflation is held in check. So when the fed raises interest rates it is to slow down the economy and eventually shut it down at about 4% unemployment. (only allowing economic expansion for population growth at that point) It’s the action of the slowing down of the economy which curbs the inflation…

        As far as government spending goes, conventional wisdom is that it does boost the economy. (of course, that depends on whose conventional wisdom your talking about… ☺) i just gave bernanke’s take on the pelosi stimulus above. Makes sense to me. Think of it this way… it’s not just the transfer of money from rich to poor, no, it’s more like the poor spending rich people’s money for them. It’s really no different than if rich people were spending it themselves. It just get’s rich people’s money out of the banks and into circulation…

      • Response to: afonzarelli September 27, 2016 at 1:09 pm

        That is the Keynisan fallacy. Spending is part of the equation, but productivity is what staves off inflation. Productivity is good. You see, conservatives have it more correct as I will try to explain in plane English.

        If you reduce interest rates, people have no incentive to save, less incentive to produce and more incentive to buy. With less production, more dollars, prices go up. You get inflation not because of growth, but because people buy up everything without making as many things.

        You want to make college expensive? Give people grant money. More people buy up the seats, prices increase because there are more customers — spending other people’s money.

        You want to make health care more expensive? You give it away at no cost to the use, or your subsidize it. People won’t care what it costs, since they have no skin in the game.

        What happens is you start to run out of stuff (that is not being produced).

        Productivity creates wealth. When people earn money, they make things or do things of value, prices come down, people get more stuff for less money. Low inflation.

        Higher interest rates:
        — rewards people who save (they get interest) and have a retirement they can count on.
        — increases the value of the money (fewer dollars per unit of GDP),
        — and the people who borrow, only borrow when they have a good investment to make. Good investments are ones that have a positive return on investment.

  9. They will only bring it up if they think they can score some points/persuade the voter.

    As their positions are fairly clear and it is unlikely to change voting intentions the probability is no – unless prompted by a question.

    Of more importance to the debate will be to draw attention to candidates weaknesses if they can – Hilary: health, emails. Donald: fences, muslims, mexicans, immigration, inexperience.

  10. I just hope the more highly evolved exoplanets are tuning this one out. Highly evolved as in beliefs and everyday conduct showing concrete evidence matters in science, science policy, and other aspects of society.

  11. I’m surprised by how many people taking the poll think Clinton will bring up ‘Climate Change’ over Trump. CAGW is an albatross few politicians want around their neck at a time like this. Obama sure didn’t four years ago, and that bird only stinks more now.

    • Her pal Bernie has probably given her an earful about it. It just seems more her style to bring it up, perhaps amongst a laundry list of things than for Trump to.

    • “I’m surprised by how many people taking the poll think Clinton will bring up ‘Climate Change’ over Trump.”

      Hillary won’t bring it up, she is already about to lose Pennsylvania to Trump over the Obama administration cutting all the coal jobs. Hillary wants this issue to go away.

  12. I think Clinton owes enough to people like Soros and Steyer she will feel obligated to mention climate change. Trump has the problem of portraying her as a zealot, and preferably a deluded zealot, or a total sellout to the greens.

  13. It should come up considering the far reaching impact of the proposed “solutions”

    Trump may want to point out that Obama/Clinton trade signatures on meaningless climate treaties for real give-aways that cost us jobs and security. The John Kerry plan.

  14. Hillary brings it up all the time saying things like “Donald Trump does not even believe in climate change”! As if it is the biggest insult possible. A disqualifier.
    As usual, warmistas and thier adherents have everything exactly backwards, the inverse contrapositive of the truth. (Okay, maybe it is the reverse of the truth, but inverse contrapositive sounds more emphatic.)

    • If she does, he has a killer ome minute return:
      ‘Of course the climate changes, thank goodness the last ice age ended. I just don’t think very much of it is anthropogenic. And I think your plan to throw hundreds of thousands of American fossil fuel workers out of work–which you promised to do–is unAmerican. And I think Obama’s climate deal with China, which you support, is a very bad deal for America. He promised to make our energy much more expensive and unreliable, while China continues building more coal generating plants at least until 2030 in order to take still more manufacturing jobs away from Americans. You, Hillary, are the one in denial.

      • … and he needs to define anthropogenic as he is talking. He got where he is in the polls, in part, by using small words that the slowpokes can understand.

        “… I just don’t think very much of it is anthropogenic – very little of it is caused by Joe the plumber in Indiana, or John the miner West Virginia, or human activities in general – and those are the people that will be harmed if Mrs. Clinton gets her way. She has promised to get rid of mining jobs – impacting hundreds of thousands of American fossil fuel workers ….”

  15. I voted no. I don’t think either candidate will bring it up. Clinton won’t because it’s a poisonous issue for her. She’s already said she is going to put people out of work and businesses out of business because of climate change. Trump won’t , or probably shouldn’t, because it’ll alienate people he’s trying to woo for votes. But then again, what do I know, my crystal ball broke a long time ago.

  16. Trump very well could bring up energy policy, and how he plans to push coal and oil, which of course is a direct punch in the gut to Hilary’s plans to continue Obama’s Legacy of Stupid™, and the Warmist ideology.

  17. I voted no. Only because Clinton say something like, “I believe in science”, but not actually mention the words “Climate Change” or “Global Warming”.

  18. Anthony, it’s hard to take anyone seriously that posts “Russian dictator Vladimir Putin.” Their elections are monitored far closer than ours, and the Russian people elected him by a considerable margin. Time to take your head out of the sand.

  19. I think Hillary will – this is part of building a narrative, and casting Trump as a ‘denier’ is part of it (besides .

    Either way, I imagine the editorial page of major dailies across the country are about to erupt in a Progressive embolism.

  20. The Option 3 wording, “No mention, they’ll focus on bigger issues” leaves me with no choices. I would say “No mention” but I doubt they will focus on bigger issues. It will be more as you characterize in the article.

    “In the 2016 U.S. presidential campaign, which at present demands our breathless attention to personal health issues, Clinton’s email servers, Trump’s admiration of Russian dictator Vladimir Putin, Trump’s Obama “birther” obsession, and Clinton’s supposed deceptions”

    That is what the media wants and likely what they’ll get.

  21. I am hoping the Donald goes on an extended rant about the black helicopters, chemtrails, and his organs, while Hillary goes into a coughing fit, faints, and collapses.

  22. Polls show that people are not focused on Global Warming. I.e., they don’t have their eye on the ball. In addition to its socialist power-grab feature, AGW has a scientific, true-false side, one which the Democrats can expect to lose in a true debate. The Dem candidate won’t bring it up.

    Obama, however, is merely waiting for a tornado or hurricane or a nice hot day to impose further restrictions on “carbon” while everybody is focused on other issues. (Look! A Kardashian!) Trump would be missing a bet if he fails to stir the AGW pot in the right direction.

  23. The only way it comes up is if things get heated on stage to remind them to talk about it. Otherwise I expect it will be chilly all night long.

  24. I doubt the climate issue is raised by Trump. He should focus on her health. Remember, most American’s put climate issue towards the bottom. Why bring it up? No, Trump doesn’t bring it up. Hillary doesn’t bring it up. She’s not the Burn!

  25. I vote that Hillary will not bring up climate change, and Donald Trump will, at least in the form of an attack on Hillary’s position on the coal industry.

    The coal industry has lost thousands of jobs because of the Obama/Clinton climate change policies, and Hillary is just about to lose all the coal states. Trump is ahead in all of them, but Pennsylvania, and he is within the margin of error there. If Hillary loses Pennsylvania, she loses the election.

    Of course, Trump will bring this part of it up, at least. It is a very strong debate point that Hillary cannot refute, no matter what she does.

    • If I were Trump, I’d mention the Democrat’s destruction of America’s fuel industry and promise to reverse that crime by ripping up Obama’s executive orders on day one.

      And when Hillary tried to counter with lies, I’d school her on how Science isn’t a democracy, the 97% claim is a fraud anyway, climate always changes, more CO2 is beneficial, and how an “optimal” climate is warmer than today’s.

      At that point, her right eye would zig while her left eye zagged, as her handlers screamed into that hidden microphone she wears.

  26. Clinton will bring up Climate change.
    One hallmark of the liberal is that they will always bring this up as a way of trying to claim the moral high ground, i.e. “they care and you don’t.”

  27. I don’t think it’ll even be mentioned because this has become a laughing stock issue. No reasonable person wants to lose their rights and live in poverty (while Hillary, Obama and Gore live in obscene opulent privilege) in order to prevent 0.01°C of hypothetical warming — especially when more CO2 and more warming is actually BENEFICIAL.

  28. article: “Trump’s admiration of Russian dictator Vladimir Putin,

    Leftwing propaganda apparently being repeated. We already see how Putin treats a weak Obama and Hillary: He runs all over them. Trump will be different.

    article: “Trump’s Obama “birther” obsession,”

    As opposed to the Left’s obsession with John McCain’s birth place and eligibility. It’s ok for the Left, it’s not ok for the Right.

    Besides, Obama started it by claiming for years he “was born in Kenya” on the website of his publisher, then about a month before he declared his run for the presidency, the wording changed to “born in Hawaii”. Obama is the first birther.

    On top of that, Hillary and her minions were the ones who sought to use Obama’s eligibilty and birthplace as an issue. Trump just jumped on the bandwagon (with nothing to gain, I might add) and his involvement eventually resulted in Obama making his “supposed” birth certificate public.

    article: “and Clinton’s supposed deceptions,”

    Hillary has so many confirmed deceptions they are too numerous to count. “Supposed” is a totality inappropriate. It gives Hillary Clinton the benefit of the doubt, which should never be done. She has proven she doesn’t deserve it.

  29. Climate change, or whatever we call it these days, is a “dog whistle” for the left (and the fashionable). They know what it means. Ms. Clinton will bring the issue to convey her alignment with them.

  30. Simple test .. will either ground Air Force One ? ?

    … but his might make it hard not to talk about at all …

    Myron Ebell, director of energy and environment policy at the conservative think tank Competitive Enterprise Institute, is heading Trump’s EPA transition preparation, E&E Daily reported Monday.

    Ebell is an outspoken, longtime skeptic of the scientific consensus that human activity is dramatically changing the climate. He often refers to warnings about global warming as climate “alarmism” and is a vocal critic of President Obama’s climate change regulations.

  31. The UK Labour party chose not to mention it much in the 2015 election (probably due to polling showing that not many rated it highly), the Lib Dems did of course, as their core vote is built around that kind of thing. The lib Dems got wiped out, but of course correlation is not causation, there were plenty of other reasons not to vote for them.

  32. As more skeptics become emboldened in politics globally the less the establishment want to talk about. The last thing that Hilary wants is to potentially debate on this issue. I suspect that a Trump success will see the biggest ” rats leaving the ship” effect as warmists on the AGW gravy train fear for their future.

  33. The icy roadway caused Campbell to slide into the path of the train when trying to stop. Campbell put the sport utility vehicle in reverse, but was unable to back clear of the track.

  34. clinton will mention it first as a policy she pushes that makes it better for people.
    trump will light into her over it

  35. Hillary won the debate.

    What, the debate hasn’t happened yet?
    Just “projecting” the MSM united front and future headlines…

  36. i think clinton might bring it up if it is mentioned.

    note that i’m not an USA citizen and that how politics work in your country isn’t that clear for us. Except that the way either Trump or Hillary are competing, they wouldn’t make a chance to get elected in our country.

    in our country (Belgium) political debates are real debates handling about issues thus climate change is a “fixed topic” here as we got majority based coalitions instead of “one single winner”

  37. The moderator will ask Trump:

    “97% of all scientists know CAGW will kill billions of children, yet you think it’s a hoax. Mr. Trump, why do hate children so much?”

  38. I am hoping for Hillary to just pass out for just 20 seconds in the middle of the debate. No harm… just enough for her to be forced to address her Parkinson-like/neurological dysfunctions. The USA does not need a chronically sick person as president.

    • Sorry, amigo, but they’ve got her all hopped up on meds.

      Which IMO is OK. If she passed out or went all gaga or on a coughing jag, then Biden would have been called off the bench and been harder to beat.

  39. Well, here we go. I’ll try listening, but I dislike both of them so much, I may not be able to take much of the debate (still, I’m voting for Trump).

  40. She just made an issue of it.

    And Donald isn’t picking up on the fact that her husband’s administration was responsible for the Great Recession, thanks to the subprime slime.

  41. Clinton claims Trump called it “a hoax cooked up by the Chinese”

    Shoot. The Chinese and Indians both called it a hoax.

      • IIRC, Trump said, with obvious-to-anyone-with-an-average aptitude for discerning the dry humor (with a point, ~~who knows, (shrug), may be true~~) of a typical New Yorker: (quoting from memory) “… probably a hoax cooked up the Chinese {to ruin the American economy}.”

        In other words, Simon, he did not “state” that as a fact certain, only as a plausible possibility. Which it is. If you do not realize that, you do not know much about China in the 21st century. That China says that the U.S. cooked up the idea does not negate their possibly being the cooker-uppers, O Trusting Simon.

        India is right, for certain: AGW is a hoax.

    • when did the Chinese and Indians call it a hoax? China just ratified the Paris agreement and India announced it will next weekend…

      • Griff, it’s called salesmanship. The Chinese government will tell us everything we want to hear, and promise that in 15 or so years, sure, they’ll begin to reduce, recycle… blah blah blah. They do this with the full understanding that they never really need to do anything they don’t want to, that they can rewrite their own internal rules and laws in any way they see fit, at any time they want. This is their unique, totalitarian way of playing the Western leaders for chumps and benefiting economically from our (ie.your) need to “save the planet.” And the Western leaders pretty much understand this. When our Western leaders tell us “see, even the Chinese are on board with my program” that’s their way of playing US for chumps. Don’t be a chump, Griff. Western leaders don’t really think they’ve got control over the behaviors of the Chinese. Only a fool would think that.

    • It has been a good debate overall, plenty of point-counterpoint. Mistakes made by both, , more by Trump in general debating skills. His points on her past mistakes and judgement land solidly.

    • +1!

      Hillary brought it up (to satisfy Google/Ivanpah, et. al., no doubt), but

      Mister Trump won the point and the debate.
      **********************************************************

      Trump in Sum:

      1. I know about money (therefore, I can fix the economy via tax and regulation policy).
      2. You have experience, yeah: BAD experience (yes!).
      3. You (Democrats and H.R.C.) have messed up:

      a. the U.S. inner cities (which is where Blacks and Hispanics really need help)
      b. the U.S. economy by business/investment wealth-choking energy regulation and tax policy
      c. the Middle East — creating the vacuum for ISIS and doubling down in it with bad deals like paying cash to Iran for a very bad deal

      I want to help our country.

      (Appearance/demeanor: Presidential — genuinely cares about America, well informed, strong, and competent, statesmanlike in using Secretary Clinton (glaring contrast to her bush league tactic “Donald”)

      ****************************************************

      Clinton in Sum:

      I want another chance to try to do what we’ve been trying for many years, now. This time, it will work!

      I want to “help the government” (yes, she used that exact phrase).

      (Appearance/demeanor: Nurse Ratchet-Lumberjack — I sound tough so I must be physically fit even though I have a serious neurological condition and wore my Devil’s Suit Red pajamas in public).

      ********************************

      Trump won.

      • Yes, he won, but Clinton came across as the polished politician.
        Which begs the question, why is the US having these problems?

        By recklessly creating money out of thin air and pumping it into the financial markets, the Federal Reserve has greatly enriched the elite, but they have also dramatically increased the gap between the very wealthy and the rest of us. Since he has been in the White House during this time, Barack Obama has gotten the credit for this temporary stock market bubble, and most of the elite love Obama anyway.

        But in the process the stage has been set for the greatest economic and financial implosion in U.S. history, and the pain that is coming is going to affect every man, woman and child in this country.

        During the debate, Trump and Clinton will talk a lot about tinkering with tax rates and regulations, but those measures are essentially going to be meaningless when compared to the massive economic tsunami that is coming. The next president is going to inherit the biggest economic problems that this nation has ever faced, and it is going to take a miracle of Biblical proportions to turn the U.S. economy in the right direction.

        http://theeconomiccollapseblog.com/archives/26-incredible-facts-about-the-economy-that-every-american-should-know-for-the-trump-clinton-debate

      • “Clinton came across as the polished politician” — is a BAD thing. That equates her with typical politician lying and with her party’s failed policies. So, I think your statement would be better phrased, Yirgach, as:

        Clinton came across as the polished politician, thus, Trump not only won the debate on points made, he won on “most appealing to voters looking for change in Washington, D.C.” {which at least 60% of Americans want).

      • Yirgach, demographics, that’s why we’re having these problems…

        Missus M., i tried thrice, “snowmen against global warming” to no avail. The saints (down here in n’awlins) lost thrice and i lost 3 times in making you LOL (!). Maybe i’ll try again later with some success. Keep up the good fight!

        arthur…

      • Yigach,

        Please!

        Begging the question is the name of a logical fallacy which means assuming that which you intend to demonstrate. You mean raises the question.

      • Trump pointed out the bubble and the US Fed’s role in pumping it by politically based monetary policy.
        He also pointed out the hard landing that is inevitable if things continue as is. He didn’t mention that it’s probably too late to prevent the crash even if he is elected.

        The “polished politician” aspect of Hillary may become an increasing burden on her campaign the more that Trump highlights the failing of the current administration.

      • Oh, Arthur (smile). Sorry I missed you at 9:33pm. Well, just the THOUGHT of “snowmen against global warming” made me chuckle, so, it wasn’t strikes but balls you were racking up, there and you did NOT get “Ball four! Yerrrout!” you hit a home run.

        LOL! :)

        Ms. M.

    • I was suprised that Hillary brought up renewables early, and gun control later, and Trump did not take what was apparently intended as bait. The only real line Trump did have on global warming is that nuclear proliferation is a much larger problem.

      • You’re right. IMO he dropped the ball on a number of points, but maybe he knows what he’s doing by going after the issues he did emphasize.

      • Here in OZ our leftist ABC reckons Shrillary won but after watching most of it I think the Don had her measure and the left will always back the left anyway .
        Lots of opportunities missed by Trump though .

      • There are two maor debates scheduled, and it could be Trump wanted to see what attacks Hillary would use. IMO the only attack Trump did not really deal with was on tax returns, which would be simple to defuse.

      • Robert,

        I agree, because he’s focused on the issues that help him with blue collar workers and hasn’t been schooled on issues which show the Clintons in an even more unfavorable light than trade.

      • So everyone agrees Americans must pay their fair share of taxes.
        And that much of our tax dollars go to defense, a large percentage of which is used to provide security for other countries.
        Is it unreasonable to insist that those other countries pay THEIR fair share, when we insist that our own people do?
        Should we give a pass to people in foreign lands who refuse to pay up, and we pay for their free ride?

      • The average voters has only one or two, at the outside, three major issues that use to decide how to vote.
        Wasting time on issues that aren’t important to the voters is a good way to lose an election.

  42. My impression is that Clinton did herself some good merely because she didn’t faint, freeze up, go on a coughing jag or otherwise demonstrate the debilitating neurological conditions which render her incapable of serving as president for four years.

    • Sure Clinton didn’t faint, but then she wasn’t under the pressure he was. Mmmm why was Trump continually sniffing and drinking gallons of water? I hope he is not getting sick?

    • She looked proppy at times with the eyes and the frozen facial gestures… and there was definitely a moment of the repetitive movements problem. This time it was a shoulder shrug that kept repeating. Didn’t note the time but it was fairly late in the debate. Should be obvioius to anyone watching.

    • Simon,

      Trump, unlike Clinton, has been daily out and about, meeting and greeting the people, while she has been holed up nursing sickness and debate prepping.

      On the campaign trail, you get viruses. Comes with the territory.

      • Gabro

        “Trump, unlike Clinton, has been daily out and about, meeting and greeting the people, while she has been holed up nursing sickness and debate prepping.

        On the campaign trail, you get viruses. Comes with the territory.”

        Well good on Trumpy, but that strategy didn’t serve him well. Perhaps he should spend a little more time actually preparing, then we at least would have a debate that was a competition. Next time might be different, but this time it was a hiding. Clinton 1 Trump 0. Get over, it move on.

  43. Trump has the best wife.

    Hypothetically, what might Bill Clinton be titled if he ended up back in the White House? Prince Consort?

  44. I think Trump missed an opportunity early on to tie together the questions about the economy, tax policy, and inner city violence by talking about his plan to create a tax Holiday for stranded offshore assets, on the condition that a certain percentage of the repatriated money then be used for investments in inner cities areas.
    This one policy could bring trillions back to the US to buoy the economy, with a large fraction going to create jobs for inner city minority citizens. This would lower crime, enhance revenue, grow the economy, bring hope to those who have none, jobs where few exist…
    It is a great, a brilliant plan…and he never mentioned it.

    • Using repatriated assets for inner city rebirth sounds like a great idea, but doesn’t take into account the amount of “leakage” which occurs during implementation. You would be lucky to see 10 cents on the dollar actually doing something useful.

      Much better to remove the regulations which stifle business. For example, the City of Seattle food and retail businesses with 500 or more employees are required to give a 14-day advance notice if they change an employee’s work schedule and give 10-hour breaks between closing and opening shifts.

      Hmm. Well fine, but don’t use any federal funds for that kind of local insanity.

      • Ten cents is better than no cents.
        10% of several trillion dollars is a good start, and if the tax holiday is implemented, the money will come back.
        Hundreds of billions in inner city job creation would go a long way in places with nothing.
        And it would cost tax payers zero.
        The money would be invested by people that know how to create jobs and opportunity and profits, and would be a starting point, as opposed to a government operated black hole for money.

      • And, BTW, Trump does promise to wipe away these business crushing regulations.
        We know he is motivated to do so, and the President can easily do this by executive appointments and orders.
        We also know she would do the opposite…doubling down on the business crushing policies of the current administration.
        Her pronouncements on energy policy alone are reason enough to vote against her.
        She wants to wipe out what is left of our mining and manufacturing and energy infrastructures.

    • Menicholas September 26, 2016 at 8:59 pm wrote: “I think Trump missed an opportunity early on to tie together the questions about the economy, tax policy, and inner city violence by talking about his plan to create a tax Holiday for stranded offshore assets, on the condition that a certain percentage of the repatriated money then be used for investments in inner cities areas.”

      Mehicholas, Trump actually did mention off-shore money and applying some of it to inner city problems.

      http://dailycaller.com/2016/09/26/everything-said-during-tonights-presidential-debate-between-donald-trump-and-hillary-clinton/

      “And here’s the thing. Republicans and Democrats agree that this [cutting taxes on off-shore assets] should be done, $2.5 trillion. I happen to think it’s double that. It’s probably $5 trillion that we can’t bring into our country, Lester. And with a little leadership, you’d get it in here very quickly, and it could be put to use on the inner cities and lots of other things, and it would be beautiful.

      But we have no leadership. And honestly, that starts with Secretary Clinton.”

    • Any money diverted to inner cities would be wasted.
      Until the people who live their want economic development, anything built there will either stand empty, or end up employing people who don’t live in the inner city.

  45. IMHO Donald made only one mistake:
    when the debate went to cyber security and hacking, Donald should have ripped into Hillarly like a pit bull on crack.
    He had earlier touched on her deleted emails, but this was an opening that could have won him the presidency.

    Maybe next time.

    • He should demand he get all the questions beforehand like Hillary. They won’t let him, of course. The Bilderberg gang controls our media.

      • “He should demand he get all the questions beforehand like Hillary. They won’t let him, of course. The Bilderberg gang controls our media.”

        What Trump should do at the next debate is listen politely to the moderator’s question, and then Trump should ignore the question, if it doesn’t fit in with what Trump wants to discuss, and Trump should then discuss what *he* wants to talk about (Hillary can do the same if she wants but it won’t help *her*).

        Trump says, “Lester, you forgot to ask Secretary Clinton about Benghazi, here, let me help you out by asking her about it myself, and then we can discuss it.”

        Lester also forgot to ask Hillary about her deleted emails, and how the FBI Director described her as a liar (in so many words), and about the Clinton Crime Foundation and all the influence peddling Hillary has done as Secretary of State. How about Hillary selling 25 percent of the U.S. uranium reserve to Russia, for which her foundation received over $20 million from people affiliated with the deal. Lester didn’t ask Hillary a lot of things. Trump should do the moderator’s jobs for them if that’s what it takes.

    • William —

      Yeah, Hillarly telling the world about her plans for cyber security — who famously said when asked if she had wiped her personal server replied — “You mean with a cloth?”

      Eugene WR Gallun

      • Yeah, Mr. Gallun, that was the FUNNIEST segment of that show — oh, brother. The woman who not only opened the front door for cyber-spying, but, virtually hollered across the lawn, “Come on in, thieves! …. We’ll leave the light on for ya.”

  46. Curious, this habit of presidential and would-be prime ministerial debates. If they had had them in 1930s Germany Hitler would have won hands down. Eloguence is no measure of wisdom or righteousness.

    • I had many American friends who, at the time, fell for Obama’s charm and easy going oratory. I told them at the time that there were being mugged, delusional and that he would be a disaster and would disappoint. I cannot help but feel that his legacy demonstrates that.

      Is America a better place for his Presidency? Is the world a better place for his Presidency? Personally, I would have thought that the clear answer to those questions is NO and NO.

      America needs a good President, so does the world, but unfortunately this is not on offer in this election.

    • Obama has carried on with a path established by Ronald Reagan. He has done nothing to fix the financial industry. He is quite content to see jobs shipped offshore. He is also content to see poor folks growing in number and slipping further into poverty. Inequality is growing and starting to affect people’s health. In terms of lifespan, America is 31st in the world and the trend is in the wrong direction.

      The U.S. Census Bureau says that nearly 47 million Americans are living in poverty right now. link

      Obama has been a terrible president.

      • Inequality is somewhat bogus. If you have a poor person earning 30K and a rich person earning $1million, and then the next year the economy does great and the poor earns 60K and the rich $2 million, all of a sudden inequality is higher, and folks are screaming about a problem, even though everyone is better off. Of course when Obama policies caused a weak recovery, and now the rich person is only earning 500K and the poor is earning $zero being unemployed, all of a sudden the inequality number look much better, but who is really better off – no-one.

        And no, no-one is carrying on the policies of Ronald Reagan, and they haven’t since he left office. They were disassembled starting with Bush SR and by all presidents through Obama, so now, we no longer have an economic miracle. Of course Reagan gets blamed by socialist failings for everything the socialists can’t accomplish.

      • marque2 says: September 27, 2016 at 8:18 am

        Inequality is somewhat bogus. …

        … And no, no-one is carrying on the policies of Ronald Reagan, …

        The trouble is that poor white folks no longer believe in the American Dream. They can remember good jobs and a prosperous life. It doesn’t matter to them that they are still better off than the average Nigerian.

        “I see airports in different places of the world. You go to some of these Asian countries, you go to some of the Mideast. You go to Saudi Arabia, you go to Qatar, you go to different places in China. You see airports and infrastructure the likes of which you’ve never seen. They have in China trains that are so modern, so fast, so incredible, you never see that, we don’t have anything. We got trains that go bup, bup. They’re like from 150 years ago. We’re becoming a third-world country,” he said. The Donald

        I’m not sure which policies you refer to. I was talking about deregulating the financial industry (which led to the 2008 meltdown) as well as changing the rules so our industry could send our jobs to China. No president since then has changed any of that.

      • Actually Bob, while I agree with you about Obama being a terrible president. I think we can thank both K-Street and Congress in general for the deregulation of the financial industry. It hasn’t been just one party or one administration. As one ex-congressman said a couple of years ago:” I’m glad I am no longer a part of that. You have too many people throwing money at you and telling you your poop don’t stink.”

        Deregulation actually started in the last year of the Carter Administration with the Depository Institutions Deregulation and Monetary Control Act of 1980. The thrifts were then deregulated almost entirely by the Garn-St. Germain Depository Institutions Act of 1982 under President Reagan. Probably the ‘ icing on the cake’ was the repel of Glass–Steagall by the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act in 1999 under President Clinton. On top of all that, you can then blame several generations of unintended consequences derived from initially good intentions for the subprime mortgage crisis of 2007. That all started when Henry Cisneros, Secretary of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) for President Clinton loosened mortgage restrictions, dropping down-payment requirements to 10%. By the time everyone go on board that train, down-payments had hit zero and income qualifications weren’t much higher.

      • 1) Poverty is defined as a fraction of the median income. So there will always be a lot of people living in poverty. The problem is that American poverty, isn’t poverty by any rational definition of the term.
        2) The only thing the government can do to stop jobs from going over seas is to get rid of the conditions that make moving jobs over seas the rational thing to do. You can’t just pass a law making it illegal, unless you want to make this country more fascist than it has become lately.
        3) The bigger government gets, the bigger inequality gets.
        4) Since every country measures life expectancy in a different manner, and these measures change over time, life expectancy is close to useless when comparing countries. But of course socialists like simple answers because they can’t handle the complexity of the real world.

      • Joe Crawford says: September 27, 2016 at 10:32 am

        I fully agree. The Democrat party has pretended that it is working for the people but they have thrown their lot in with a rather nasty elite.

        MarkW says: September 27, 2016 at 11:11 am

        The former middle class middle aged undereducated white population disagrees with you. They used to have good jobs and both parties saw fit to throw them on the scrap heap. They no longer care if they bring the system crashing down around their own ears. They hate Clinton, because they aren’t as stupid as the elites think they are, and will vote for Trump because he’s their only (albeit faint) hope.

        In the meantime, you can still get a good job in Germany with a highschool education. link Germany cares about its population … America, not so much.

    • What was good about Obama?
      He was good at lying.
      He was good at fostering racial tensions.
      He was good at spending other people’s money.
      He was good at golf.
      He was good at taking expensive vacations.
      He was good at getting Republicans elected.
      He wasn’t good at improving the economy.
      He wasn’t good at creating employment.

  47. A view from the other side of the Atlantic.

    On any sort of intellectual or analytical level the performance by Trump was woeful – a clear lack of preparation, inability to focus on the questions asked, evasive, and at times straight forward untruths.

    Hilary on the other hand played the conventional well prepared, informed and balanced political role she is familiar with. If a winner was selected only on the quality of the responses Hilary would be a very clear winner.

    But their styles were wildly different. Hilary represents the establishment politician – balanced, careful, political. Trump played the arrogant “in your face” straight talking alternative.

    For many this would be perceived as convincing (even if lacking in substance) as the conventional political process and politicians are taking a bit of a beating at the moment – not just in the US but in many parts of the world.

    I think it derives from a frustration felt by many of excessive political control, societies run for the benefit of the few, lack of evident influence over the political process etc. A vote for Trump is a way to express personal frustrations and dissatisfaction – vote from the heart and not the head.

    There are clear parallels with the Brexit campaign in the UK – the rational analytical Remain case was overwhelmed by an emotive message from the Leave camp who it is clear had no plan and were making up the story as they went along.

    I can’t help thinking that the world will be a far more dangerous place with a Trump victory – whilst the US may be sufficiently large and powerful to ride out any problems, the role and influence of the US in world affairs may be seriously compromised through the unilateral adoption of arrogant and simplistic policies.

    • I am also from the opposite of the pond, and I agree with much of your analysis.

      However, in my opinion, Clinton represents everything that is wrong with politics, and the political class that rule us. Whilst she has experience, that experience demonstrates clearly how inadequate and I would say incompetent she is at doing a job.

      Her attitude over email security and her comments upon the Benghazi incident ought in themselves be sufficient to demonstrate that she is not a fit and proper person for public office.

      She would be an utter disaster for the world if she were to get elected. I am not keen on Trump (although I do appreciate his non PC approach), but Clinton is by far the greater evil of the two

      Certainly the MSM in the UK is doing its best to support Clinton and rubbish Trump, and that in itself tells you a lot. The political elite do not wish to curb their power and influence, and will do anything to protect their position.

      We live in troubled times.

    • It was interesting Clinton kept lying about Trump and Trump had to defend. I work Tuesday Hillary’s presentation was about 40% truth. Then we had Lester Holt falsely Fact checking Trump. Fortunately Trump had good answers every time Lester tried to correct him. Lester’s insistance with the false narrative that Trump supported the Iraq war was also disturbing, especially since that narrative is Democrat Fantasy. Trump was asked 3 embarrassing questions which has little to do with anything. He was asked about Hillary’s birther/Muslim movement, the fake you supported the war, and tax returns. Meanwhile Hillary only got lift questions, nothing about email, Benghazi, deplorwbles, or the state of her health, all serious questions she should have been asked.

      With Trump.debating two people, both lying, it was no coincidence Trump seemed a bit defensive during the debate, which may have come off as unprepared. Hillary for all the choice questions seemed to come off just as bad, and certainly not as prepared as expected with her month of prep work,

    • i will add it here as a reply as well as like this some will see how other countries “see this debate”.

      Of course nothing insulting is meant by this but in Belqium a debate of this poor quality would not even move us to go vote for either of them. there’s no common sense in both candidates nor a real “plan”.

      The politician with the most consistent plan was Clinton. Belgian press is unanimously agreeing on this. however they see this as “most prepared for the debate TV show” not best political strategy which if i were a US citizen i would be ashamed of: to know that other countries see something as important as electing a new president as a “show”.

      also know that a lot of WWII veterans here compare trump with Hitler and are seeing the spectre of the 30’s rise to power again.

      The Us is going through a backlash of it’s own created credit balloon. When the balloon pops it hurts, but that’s not a problem that can’t be dealt with. The real issues are multinationals that seek the most gain, and therefore move to low wage countries. Nothing can stop this motion it’s the achilles heel of the capitalist system. All well developed countries suffer from this weak spot, even ours.

      i’m affraid that lowering the tax on work won’t help, that measure didn’t stop Caterpillar and other industries here from leaving to a low wage country. Actually a worker’s wage is just a tiny part of the real costs. Infrastructure and land area are costs that makes the biggest difference.

      That’s where the low wage countries are really the first choice, that the wages are low is an additional “bonus”, however it’s just the small part of the story

      and point is i see no real solution offered by both candidates to counter this issue.

      • Interesting – in WWII Jews were minding their own business, with regular jobs, and feeding their families off their labor.

        Now we have another group, that immigrates mostly for the welfare, sits around, and concocts ways of destroying western society, some to the point where they will frequently blow up and shoot innocent civilians in their host country – the people who were kind enough to let them in. For pointing this out one is called Hitler. The Jews weren’t constantly bombing Germany/Europe/US – which made them scapegoats.

        WW II vets should know better, they actually fought not to let terrorists, like Hitler take over the world, but now they are supporting the terrorists.

        One thing I agree with you – Trump and Hillary were both horrible at the debate – both looking unprepared to me.

      • “The politician with the most consistent plan was Clinton.”

        Could you explain “Clinton’s Plan” to me? All I heard from her was generalities.

        That’s all you ever hear from her. She always describes what she is going to do, but never how she is going to do it. Hillary is very accomplished at not being pinned down on any issue.

    • She was ‘well prepared’ because she cheated and was given all the questions two weeks ago which were all designed to attack Trump.

      • Her answer to the very first question was proof of the pudding. No one is THAT well prepared off-the-cuff and she’s usually a terrible extemporaneous speaker. That hysterical little laugh when Trump followed up on the illegal server set up about the tech now taking the 5th shows what happens when things go off-script for her.

      • A flat lie, completely unsubstantiated……

        Even if……the perception of this is going to be her downfall

    • Terry Warner —

      In regard to your first two paragraphs — about Hillary you miss the point entirely. Yes, she has all the facts at her fingertips — BUT ALWAYS MAKES THE WRONG DECISIONS!!! This is a woman with an unblemished record of failure. You seem to think scoring rhetorical points is the same thing as putting points up on the scoreboard. Hillary always loses the game. As regards Trump he knows how to win and will bull his way to the goal line. Actions speak louder than words.

      I don’t want to make this an all nighter, so lets jump to paragraph five where you say, “Trump is a way to express personal frustrations and dissatisfaction — vote from the heart and not the head.” If one thing comes across clearly American progressives are the ones who vote from the heart and not from the head. (The same applies to you.) American progressives are all about emotion — not about reason. They strive hard to stir up suspicion, anger and outright hatred for those who disagree with them. Rule of thumb — If it screams and yells and spits on the opponent it is a Hillary supporter. That is the type of behavior the Democratic party encourages.

      As far as Brexit goes — it wasn’t your ox getting gored — so you voted against it. And the fear campaign was run by those who wanted to Remain. Day after day some new horror was revealed by your press if Brexit passed. Don’t talk to me about a “rational analytical Remain case — you never presented one. Your entire campaign was based on creating fear.

      And your last paragraph — Under O’Bummer America has lost the world’s respect!. That will only get worse under Hillary. One of our American president, Teddy Roosevelt said — “Speak softly but carry a big stick.”
      How many times has O’Bummer drawn a red line and then not enforced it when it was crossed? Hillary will be worse. The Democratic Party believes in running its mouth and then backing down. Black Lies Matter has as its motto — “Hands Up, Don’t Shoot!” That will be Hillary Clinton’s foreign policy.

      Eugene WR Gallun

  48. And the real issue last night is: WAS HILLARY GIVEN ALL THE ‘QUESTIONS’ DURING THE LAST TWO WEEKS? It is obvious to me, she had prepared answers and knew none of the questions about her own activities would be asked. And this is a fraud, of course but then, we all knew this would be a fake debate with everything rigged in her favor.

  49. When challenged that he had said, “Global Warming is a hoax,” he responded “The hoax is thinking we can change the climate. Just so.
    !

  50. I thought Hillary did well last night. She did what she needed to do to stay in the race. Of course, just about everything she said was untruthful but that’s what she needed to do to stay in the race. I’m kind of wondering how people are going to take her “implicit racism” comment, though. I personally, don’t like being called a racist by Hillary Clinton. Being falsely accused is one of the worst things in the world.

    Trump did an adequate job, although he did miss numerous opportunities to hit on good points, but he hit on enough of them to keep him in the game. Trump is an amateur at this politics game, and Hillary is a seasoned veteran of politics and twisting the truth, yet Trump held his own.

    Hillary used all her vicious attacks on Trump last night. She called him a racist, and a tax cheat, and out of control, among other things. I wonder what she will use next time. Or is she out of Trump ammunition and will have to use the same old smears next time?

    The debate is really enlightening of Hillary’s character is one way. Hillary demonstrated just how easily she can distort the facts when it serves her interests. Look at her face and demeanor as she tries to hang the Obama birth certificate controversy around Trump’s neck. She know very well she was the one who first instigated the questioning of Obama’s birthplace, yet she calls Trump racist for doing the same thing. Hillary has no shame, and it was on perfect display right there.

    Hillary is vulnerable on numerous issues. Trump will focus in on them more during the next two debates. Trump is just learning this skill, but he is a fast learner, so Hillary is not off the hook by a long shot.

    • Yeah, Trumps problem was that he didn’t do a good job of explaining it. He mentioned people no-one heard of. He should have said, Hillary your campaign started this in 2008.

      Also Trump instead of being on defense, with taxes could have pointed out the huge tax dodge/slush fund the Clinton foundation is. (Clinton Foundation makes here returns all phony)

      He also didn’t want to go over Hillary attacking women Bill raped. When she said things about him being anti-woman, he could have pointed out her slander attacks against mistresses, and forced engagements, and pointed out that Hillary Is the war on women.

      Trump could have done better, and been better prepared. I think he will be next time he will be.

  51. I had to turn off the debate after about 10 or 15 minutes. I just could not listen to either one of them. Hillery is a pathological liar and Trump just ‘rambles on’. I would expect a prep school bully like Trump to be able to think on his feet a bit faster. Guess all I can do is fall back on something David Middleton
    said on another thread (August 15, 2016 at 4:55 am):

    Trump would, at worst, be a 4-yr mistake. Her Hagness would be a generational disaster. The next President will probably nominate the next 1-4 SCOTUS justices.

  52. Mario, no need to worry… i’m the only drunk left at the party and i don’t know how to read anyway. (☺)

Comments are closed.