An analysis of Monday night's Trump-Clinton presidential debate

[AvilaSurfer]

Yet he will be excused (if it's true), while Hillary and her campaign will be considered devil's spawn.

If it walks like a duck....

 

[s_gunter]

If it walks like a duck....

He sure does...

 

[MikeK]

Not without some irony, I'm going to repeat my direct question which was in response to a post stating (laughably) that Mr Trump didn't dodge questions. I suspect my question was accidentally overlooked.

But Trump did answer all of the questions that were asked of him.

Let's test that. I have a list of questions that I didn't see him answer (I suspect because he is a blowhard and far too much of a coward to directly answer questions that he fears will make him look bad, his ego can't take that) We'll start with Mr Holt asking Mr Trump what he meant when he said that Ms Clinton doesn't have "a Presidential look". Do you recall Mr Trump's answer to that question? Go ahead and share it, please.

 

[Fantine]

I'm not sure.

Is leading with comments about what he perceived the Obama administration (of which Hillary was a part from 2009-12) did an "answer?"

Saying what you perceived the other party didn't accomplish doesn't indicate what you're going to accomplish--much less how you're going to accomplish it.

One example was the murder rate in Chicago. Trump led by saying it has increased under Obama (fact check in link) when in fact it has fallen. Then he called Democratic policies "a disaster" without referencing how alternate Republican policies might have helped blacks (which would have been virtually impossible to prove).

http://mediamatters.org/blog/2013/06/19/the-truth-about-chicagos-falling-murder-rate/194521

 

[AvilaSurfer]

He sure does...

That's not really as clever as you think it is.