posted on Oct, 20 2016 @ 07:22 AM
i think Trump won in the sense he HAD to do what is for him, well, in order to show he was still in this race and somewhat viable to his base and some
Verbally Trump did well for him, getting alot of good quips in there. Substance wise Trump is somewhat weak but depending on the topic he can have
alot to offer especially on the economy and trade related stuff which he seems somewhat comfortable with if not knowledgeable, and also the issue of
security and terrorism which doesnt needs as much substance as a simple message that hes going to be very tough on those issues.
Clinton did pretty good....she did seem very scripted but surprisingly and enjoyable she got a few good quips of her own out there. Substance wise
she also gets a weak rating from me because even though she addresses different topics she offers nothing very specific about how she will achieve her
goals and this is actually a very common problem with politicians in general...they say theyre going to do this or that, making very broad sweeping
statements but where the rubber meets the road there is little to no details about how they will actually make those things happen.
Heres an example. Say im claiming im going to bring a lot of jobs back by lowering taxes on the super rich, like Trump says. WEll, that tells me
almost nothing about the specific ways doing that will create more jobs, or am i to assume that he means because rich people often own businesses that
they will hire more people if their taxes are lower? Perhaps that is the assumption but i dont think everyone will be able to make that leap.
Same with Clinton, she says shes going to create jobs or do this or that but the so called solutions are just very broad and could be interpreted in
so many ways.
This is what i would do. I would say ok in this sector, say coal, im going to create this many jobs by relaxing regulations on coal power and
extraction and that will by its very nature allow those companies to make more money and hire more people.
Or one could say ' on the west coast were going to create more timber jobs by relaxing the federal management over forests and logging on public land
Or one could say im going to create jobs in the desert parts of the US by incentivising solar farms and get people jobs that way through
or or or a hundred other ways to specifically say how youre going to create jobs. Just saying your going to create jobs magically by lowering or
raising taxes doesnt tell us anything. I like specifics and on that both Trump and Clinton fail to make their case much of the time and anyone whos
not beholden to either candidate likely HEARS the lack of substance and detail in their plans.
all in all, it was THE most entertaining debate between them and i enjoyed it a great deal. I think they both came off great to their supporters which
is what they needed to do. There were no serious gaffes that i could point to which could make or break the debate for either candidate and they both
scored some good points with well timed quips and jabs which are the bread and butter of the modern entertainment oriented populace.....sure to score
some points with undecideds probably as well.