I have avoided supporting Clinton for the past months, thinking that Johnson was the best choice, but after tonight it makes me reconsider. This debate was such an absolute slaughterhouse. Trump was systematically dismantled live on air; it was as bad as marco Rubio self-destructing but was somehow worse with the audience stay eerily quiet.
1. Trump failed when approaching the debate like another rally. His parroted points about his great image and companies backfired when Clinton mentioned the workers disparaged by his so called 'bullying' and his bankruptcy. Instead of saying that his 6 bankruptcies are a small portion of his business, he said that people that weren't paid were weak and didn't do a good job and he was a winner for not paying them. It's not a moral victory he can win, and it cost him.
2. in a similar vein, when questioned about his views on women, he just name-dropped rosie o'donnel on a completely unrelated note. "I could be much more negative to Clinton, she has been very mean. I don't deserve that! Believe me, I could do much worse". Trump has come this far with his successful negative attacks; nobody is going to believe that he's 'holding back' now because of his great, kind heart. It doesn't help him reverse his rhetoric from many months (so it doesn't win new voters) and it hurts his base of people that like him for his unfiltered comments.
3. Immigration was almost completely absent from the entire debate. This is likely a good thing for both candidates. I don't think Trump can actually defend the wall live in a debate setting without actually committing political suicide with every moderate in america, but Clinton suffers being shackled to the current immigration policy that frustrates basically everybody in the US.
4. Economic investment. Trump could have come in with ammo but did not. His entire platform is based on the fact that if you lower taxes, companies will come back. But he doesn't want to seem to talk about that. He led everybody in a circle last night, saying we've got to make companies not want to leave, we'll lower taxes, we'll raise tarrifs, we'll do it, they'll come back "believe me!", but they won't come back because they won't leave, let me tell you. But believe me, when they do leave they'll beg to come back!
Meanwhile, Clinton came in coolly with soundbytes about economic investment. It's aimed at people like myself that (admittedly i'm no economic master) get that free trade is a good thing for people. The USA leads in several markets: aerospace, defense, software, computer hardware, and energy (though in terms of energy we are not #1). Clinton says we need "good jobs", which is true, but I feel like that's lost on a majority of voters. Shifting unskilled manufacturing out and investing in futurism industries is a good move for America. America does not need air conditioner manufacturing to stay the worlds largest GDP.
Trump's counterpoints were weak on this subject. "Look at mexico, look at china. They're doing things we're not even doing". But what are those things? In general, economic life has improved for americans in the past years. Not all, though, and that's who trump is trying to latch onto, but it won't be enough to catch a majority. The air conditioner line felt fed after the third time it came out. And when asked how we're going to get them back, the only answer is "trust me, they won't leave. Believe me!". But in truth, government investment and subsidies will draw business of a kind that we want, and it is what we have been doing.
Trump further dirtied his hands when he took shots at our infrastructure (our airports are like a third world country!). Of which I agree (walking through O'Hare makes me want to die after seeing hong kong and narita); the issue is he blames the government for mishandling money when Clinton says that we will continue to invest in infrastructure with tax dollars. Saying that not paying taxes "makes you smart" is NOT a good idea, nor is it a position you can hold when you say our infrastructure is cumblilng.
5. Both candidates got their hands very filthy when talking about race relations. I happen to be a privileged rich, white, straight, tall, male, so my opinions are inherently racist™ on the subject. Trump had the opportunity to double down and say that minority communities need to stop violence among themselves rather than at police. He did not, and instead meandered through a discussion about stop-and-frisk and how great it would be for Chicago (which shows a massive lack of knowledge at what the problem is). He had a fantastic opportunity to say "gang violence is bad in Chicago, so we are going to go block by block and shut gangs down". He did not and instead say that we'll stop and frisk (where, the loop? Where violence is nonexistent?). He then stumbled on gun control, saying "we've got to get the guns out of the people that have them, they're bad people (Believe Me™)".
Gun control honestly doesn't work, but that's a separate issue.
Clinton meanwhile had the opportunity to say that implicit bias is a problem for everyone, including when it is said by minorities about whites. She did not. Instead it is perceived by White Trump Supporters as a further "attack on their race" similar to the "war on Christmas". Saying that everybody has a potential for bias would have saved her at least 5% in voter population. And bias is a huge issue on many cases whether by whites, blacks, Hispanics, poor people, men, women, cops, politicians, union workers, anybody. It should be our goal as humans to look at things objectively without bias as much as we can. But Clinton then went on to say that we need "radical criminal justice reform" without specifics, which hurts. America has a violent crime and violent policing problem. Police must take the edge off their work but this can't happen until we stamp out gang work. Meanwhile body cameras and facts will keep violent officers in line (the woman in Tulsa? Open and shut. See you in jail). It's possible to say both of these opinions at once, but neither candidate can without imploding their own fanbase. Meanwhile Clinton rambles more about "military style weapons" and how bad they are (failing to think about the man in Washington that shot 5 with a Not Military Style Rifle and was prohibited from having that gun in the first place). Nobody wins.
This was way too long of a post for the smogon US election thread, lmfao, please give me likes to validate my opinion guys :( :( :(
1. Trump failed when approaching the debate like another rally. His parroted points about his great image and companies backfired when Clinton mentioned the workers disparaged by his so called 'bullying' and his bankruptcy. Instead of saying that his 6 bankruptcies are a small portion of his business, he said that people that weren't paid were weak and didn't do a good job and he was a winner for not paying them. It's not a moral victory he can win, and it cost him.
2. in a similar vein, when questioned about his views on women, he just name-dropped rosie o'donnel on a completely unrelated note. "I could be much more negative to Clinton, she has been very mean. I don't deserve that! Believe me, I could do much worse". Trump has come this far with his successful negative attacks; nobody is going to believe that he's 'holding back' now because of his great, kind heart. It doesn't help him reverse his rhetoric from many months (so it doesn't win new voters) and it hurts his base of people that like him for his unfiltered comments.
3. Immigration was almost completely absent from the entire debate. This is likely a good thing for both candidates. I don't think Trump can actually defend the wall live in a debate setting without actually committing political suicide with every moderate in america, but Clinton suffers being shackled to the current immigration policy that frustrates basically everybody in the US.
4. Economic investment. Trump could have come in with ammo but did not. His entire platform is based on the fact that if you lower taxes, companies will come back. But he doesn't want to seem to talk about that. He led everybody in a circle last night, saying we've got to make companies not want to leave, we'll lower taxes, we'll raise tarrifs, we'll do it, they'll come back "believe me!", but they won't come back because they won't leave, let me tell you. But believe me, when they do leave they'll beg to come back!
Meanwhile, Clinton came in coolly with soundbytes about economic investment. It's aimed at people like myself that (admittedly i'm no economic master) get that free trade is a good thing for people. The USA leads in several markets: aerospace, defense, software, computer hardware, and energy (though in terms of energy we are not #1). Clinton says we need "good jobs", which is true, but I feel like that's lost on a majority of voters. Shifting unskilled manufacturing out and investing in futurism industries is a good move for America. America does not need air conditioner manufacturing to stay the worlds largest GDP.
Trump's counterpoints were weak on this subject. "Look at mexico, look at china. They're doing things we're not even doing". But what are those things? In general, economic life has improved for americans in the past years. Not all, though, and that's who trump is trying to latch onto, but it won't be enough to catch a majority. The air conditioner line felt fed after the third time it came out. And when asked how we're going to get them back, the only answer is "trust me, they won't leave. Believe me!". But in truth, government investment and subsidies will draw business of a kind that we want, and it is what we have been doing.
Trump further dirtied his hands when he took shots at our infrastructure (our airports are like a third world country!). Of which I agree (walking through O'Hare makes me want to die after seeing hong kong and narita); the issue is he blames the government for mishandling money when Clinton says that we will continue to invest in infrastructure with tax dollars. Saying that not paying taxes "makes you smart" is NOT a good idea, nor is it a position you can hold when you say our infrastructure is cumblilng.
5. Both candidates got their hands very filthy when talking about race relations. I happen to be a privileged rich, white, straight, tall, male, so my opinions are inherently racist™ on the subject. Trump had the opportunity to double down and say that minority communities need to stop violence among themselves rather than at police. He did not, and instead meandered through a discussion about stop-and-frisk and how great it would be for Chicago (which shows a massive lack of knowledge at what the problem is). He had a fantastic opportunity to say "gang violence is bad in Chicago, so we are going to go block by block and shut gangs down". He did not and instead say that we'll stop and frisk (where, the loop? Where violence is nonexistent?). He then stumbled on gun control, saying "we've got to get the guns out of the people that have them, they're bad people (Believe Me™)".
Gun control honestly doesn't work, but that's a separate issue.
Clinton meanwhile had the opportunity to say that implicit bias is a problem for everyone, including when it is said by minorities about whites. She did not. Instead it is perceived by White Trump Supporters as a further "attack on their race" similar to the "war on Christmas". Saying that everybody has a potential for bias would have saved her at least 5% in voter population. And bias is a huge issue on many cases whether by whites, blacks, Hispanics, poor people, men, women, cops, politicians, union workers, anybody. It should be our goal as humans to look at things objectively without bias as much as we can. But Clinton then went on to say that we need "radical criminal justice reform" without specifics, which hurts. America has a violent crime and violent policing problem. Police must take the edge off their work but this can't happen until we stamp out gang work. Meanwhile body cameras and facts will keep violent officers in line (the woman in Tulsa? Open and shut. See you in jail). It's possible to say both of these opinions at once, but neither candidate can without imploding their own fanbase. Meanwhile Clinton rambles more about "military style weapons" and how bad they are (failing to think about the man in Washington that shot 5 with a Not Military Style Rifle and was prohibited from having that gun in the first place). Nobody wins.
This was way too long of a post for the smogon US election thread, lmfao, please give me likes to validate my opinion guys :( :( :(
Last edited:
