I believe it was riotous on many levels. Let’s leave out the levels, and those that saw it, please vote on it.
So according to what You saw and thought? Who won the 1st debate.:
Because the poll option appears no longer available, ordinary posting could work.
Let me start; I would call this as having been a tie breaker, even with Trump’s incessant and rude interruptions because we are so used to his clowning around and the use of hyperbola and extensive garnish to the point of out and out lying. Trump’s points on Las and order rang true, that Biden skirted the issue for political reasons, took hits in other areas that Biden managed to land on Trump.
The tax fiasco of trump working the system to allow him to avoid but 750 dollars to the IRS, two years in a row, his handling of the virus , all worked better for Biden.
What was surprising, was the effect of such clowning had on Biden, who appeared at times energized and unnerved BH Trump’ 's schoolboy manner of reaptedly interjecting without decorum, even irritating Chris Wallace to censor Trump about having to cut him off, as he is the moderator…
All in good stride, upon censure, especially when Wallace reminded him that he is equal to both debaters.
For an overall vote, I would give this to Biden.
_
Sounds like it was fun… I’m sure I’ll find an upload of it somewhere.
Thanks for the clear summary Meno_
It was , in more ways then one! I should say, MagsJ.
Here is an interesting commentary:
"Fortune
Who won last night’s presidential debate? Biden in a landslide, odds-makers say
Meghan, The Duchess of Sussex: ‘If you listen to what I actually say, it’s not controversial’
One major Asian economy besides China is set for growth this year—and its GDP just rose 2.6%
Two more Chinese tech companies are delisting from U.S. exchanges in ongoing exodus
POLITICS 2020 ELECTION
Who won last night’s presidential debate? Biden in a landslide, odds-makers say
“The probability of a Biden [presidential] win has risen,” one economist wrote in an investor’s note on Wednesday.
BERNHARD WARNER
September 30, 2020 8:18 AM EDT
The global markets have spoken. And so have the odds-makers.
Moments after Tuesday night’s bruising Trump-Biden presidential debate, the world weighed in on who won and who lost. Judging by the closely watched betting markets, score one for the blue team.
“Biden seems to have come ahead in last night’s… somewhat-chaotic debate against Trump,” Holger Schmieding, chief economist at Berenberg Bank, wrote in a note to investors this morning. “The probability of a Biden win has risen to 58.4% versus 55.3% just ahead of the debate, up from 51.0% four weeks ago. The probability of a Trump win has fallen to 40.0% from 42.5% before the debate and 46.2% four weeks ago.”
Berenberg’s Schmieding included in the report the following chart showing the latest odds
Throughout the morning, the gap had widened further. As of 7 a.m. ET on Wednesday, Biden had taken a 20-point advantage (59.3% to 39%) in win probability for the White House, according to Election Betting Odds.
Election Betting Odds and sites like it “base their projections on money laid down by regular people from around the world on a host of betting sites rather than on opinion polls or on the views of pundits or insiders,” Fortune wrote last year. With individual opinion polls coming under increasing scrutiny, Wall Street firms now routinely cite the betting odds data in reports that spell out the Election Day risk to investors.
Tuesday’s debate was marred by a barrage of insults, name-calling and heckling. And President Trump’s repeated attacks on the mail-in voting process raised concerns among global investors that America could be facing a contested election, UBS chief economist Paul Donovan wrote in an investor note on Wednesday.
That cloud hung over global markets on Wednesday, with U.S. futures solidly in the red. That uncertainty is likely to linger, Wall Street pundits say.
“International investors have been prepared to entertain some extreme views on this topic (just as they entertained extreme views on the future of the Euro area in the past),” Donovan wrote. “Given the importance of international investors to US markets, this may add volatility around the election.”
In such a scenario, nobody wins.
The 13 Trump officials under fire for violating the Hatch Act"
© 2020 Fortune Media IP Limited. All Rights Reserved.
I wish I could have spoken for Biden at several points during that debate. An example:
Biden tripped up a bit about the environment and I’d have simply stated, “yeah, it costs a lot of money that creates trillions in new jobs… but energy is not what you think it is Donald - not only do we create new job explosions in the near future - its an investment that will return more money over time than we put into it AND it helps the environment.”
“it was a hot mess, inside of dumpster fire, inside a train wreck”
said one political commentator…and yes it was…
another political commentator said… live on national Tv,
“It was a shitshow” …
two things came out of this debate for me…
One: IQ45 has resigned himself to losing this election and so
his only hope was either judicial help and/or election violence…
he brought up both points last night… as ways he was going to “win” this
election…
at no point did he encourage people to vote for him…
and at no point did he offer up any, ANY kind of plan for
his next term…you don’t give a vision for your next term
if you think you are going to lose the election…
so, I humbly ask people to vote for Joe Biden…
was mentally sharp, he didn’t fall asleep after an hour…
IQ45 either interrupted Biden or the moderator, Wallace,
over 80 times in an hour and a half…and it is impossible to
get into a flow of answers if you are interrupted so much…
so Biden never really got moving in this debate, but that
was because of IQ45…
was it a great debate by Biden, NO, not by a long shot,
but it was a fatal debate by IQ45… no one but a
true believer could possible even think of voting for
IQ45 after this “shitshow”…
One more point, the commission on Presidential debates have
come out and said, they are looking at ways to “bring order into the
debate”… the word is already out that they are going to allow
the moderator to MUTE candidates who talk over each other…
if this is true, no confirmation yet, but if this is true…
we have seen the last debate between IQ45 and Biden because
IQ45 will, never, NEVER, NEVER agree to this… his bread and butter
is to cut off and interrupt other people…
and I say, its all right…because last night was an
embarrassment to the America political idea…
and politically damaging to entire ideal of a democracy…
Kropotkin
I was disappointed. Sleepy joe was too nice and had ample opportunity to bite into trumpf. Id’a eaten trumpf in five minutes and the debate woulda been over in six. But this… this was two old men trying to do politics.
Wish I could give you a walk through the whole thing and point out all the bullshit, but that’d take too long.
K: you may as well end the “sleepy joe” trope because he clearly was
awake and fully functional at the beginning, middle and end of the “debate”
he didn’t have any sort of cognition issues claim by IQ45 or his cult members…
did Biden have a great debate? no, but because of IQ45, it didn’t matter…
Kropotkin
Or how about this from George Will at the Washington Post:
‘Before Reagan’s 1980 debate with President Jimmy Carter, seven days before the election, the polls were much closer than the election would be. Millions of voters did not want to vote for Carter — the Iranian hostage crisis, a “misery index” of 22 percent (the sum of the inflation and unemployment rates in June 1980), etc. — but they would unless they were convinced that Reagan was not the reckless and nasty person portrayed by Carter’s shrill and nasty campaigning. When Carter attacked him concerning health care, Reagan responded with amiable bemusement and triggered a 44-state landslide with four reassuring words: “There you go again.”’
That’s what Biden should have said [coolly and calmly] every single time Trump interrupted him: “There you go again”.
In fact, the whole op-ed is rather insightful: washingtonpost.com/opinions … story.html
It reflects the concerns of those inside-the-beltway talking heads [left and right] who are concerned less with the policy differences between the candidates, and more with this:
‘The putrescence of America’s public life was pitilessly displayed Tuesday when, for 98 minutes, whatever remains of the nation’s domestic confidence and international stature shriveled like a brittle autumn leaf. The national interest — actually, national security — demands that the other two scheduled mortifications, fraudulently advertised as presidential debates, should be canceled: When a nation makes itself pathetic, the response of enemy nations is not sympathy. And an additional 180 or so minutes of ignorant assertions mitigated only by the inarticulateness of the purveyors of them will swell the electorate’s already abundant crop of cynics, well defined as people prematurely disappointed about the future.’
It’s the myth of America itself that is on the line.
Lol, the Washington Post is owned and operated by libtards who despise our country so of course they can’t recognize anything regarding USA politics worth saving, not the Constitution, The Bill of Rights, the electoral college, a nine seated Supreme Court, our history, our culture, nada.
Try to imagine the utter lack of intellectual depth that goes into a fatuous post of this nature. I call it Kidstuff. And it has now infected ILP perhaps beyond repair.
Here is another take on Trump from an inside-the-beltway “talking head” on the conservative end of the political spectrum:
nytimes.com/2020/10/01/opin … e=Homepage
[b]'People on the right and the left see threats coming from different places. In his new book, “The Securitarian Personality,” the political scientist John R. Hibbing argues that people on the right tend to react to threats coming from outside America, while people on the left see threats coming from the powerful financial and political spheres inside America.
'Hibbing’s book, based on reporting, focus groups and surveys, is an attempt to understand what motivates the most enthusiastic Trump supporters. The most ardent ones, he notes, are not economically marginalized, not submissive, not authoritarian, not religious or conventionally conservative. They have a strong concept that there is a core America, a concept which I suppose you could summarize as white, rural, John Wayne, football and hunting.
'They feel that core America is under existential threat from people they view as outsiders: immigrants, Chinese communists, cosmopolitan urbanites and people of color. They see themselves as strong and vigilant protectors, defending the sacred homeland from alien menace.
People who feel themselves under threat have a high tolerance for cruelty in their leaders: A little savagery to defend the homeland might be a good thing. But the crucial thing about Donald Trump is that he is not a nationalist who uses immoral means. He is first and foremost an immoralist, whose very being was defined by dishonesty, cruelty, betrayal and cheating long before he put on political garb.'[/b]
It goes beyond this or that particular policy to an overarching “vision” of what America should be. Relating to things like race, gender norms, sexual behavior, and “core values”.
Or, from my frame of mind, a need to have something into which “I” can be anchored that sets “us” the good guys off from “them” the bad guys. Especially in a post-modern world where more and more anything goes “lifestyles” have replaced these “core values”.
So, for some, sure why not fascism?
K: I agree with your assessment of this particular post…this is pretty much standard
“in depth” understanding of a conservative…note the obligatory “libtard”
and the standard conservative line “who despise our country” while offering up
absolutely no evidence of any kind…another shallow line is how, again without
offer up any evidence, How "they can’t recognize anything regarding USA politics
worth saving, not the constitution, the bill of rights,… blah, blah, blah
you know the same old tired tropes that only has reality in the conservative mind…
what bothers me more then the cultish groupthink of the trump cult,
is the complete lack of ability to think above or below the statement…
it is all on one level of thought and belief… this “thought” “thinking” is
about as deep as a sheet of paper… perhaps even less…
and that bothers me… I hope that people can think about
things above or below their usual thought…
Kropotkin
I haven’t seen a single video frame of it… might be the time-difference interfering with my motivation to…
I haven’t either, but here is a comic refrain:
Course don’t know if it really is: (almost put it in the comedy forum)
Hmmm 
I’m far too serious a character, for political satire… I take my politics seriously.
I’ll probably try find a compilation of the debate, and watch.