Trump completely off the rails, rambling and fumbling all over the place, babbling instead of answering questions. He has lost it.

Wow, this is certainly a good watch. He is going off the rails in what he is saying. I wonder if it is all a plan.

I am not watching it. The snippet I saw with him attacking her on her Emails, he looked strong there. Wouldn't surprised me if it's the only coherent point he can make. 

Trump lost the second debate, but he is improving.

He didn't give a direct answer to any of the questions (surprise!) except the last one - what did he like about Hillary Clinton?

"She's not a quitter"

All I can say, is heaven help us with either candidate, Hillary will be just as bad as Trump in different ways. At least you know what Trump thinks, you mightn't like it, but at least you know. With Hillary she tells you want you want to hear, who knows what she really thinks.

It's hard to believe "The Greatest Country in the West" (I say that tongue in cheek, however the USA is seen as a western democratic power house) could come up with two nominees that are so woefully inadequate as a true leader. 

What does it tell us? That there's a massive disinterest in the democratic process? Such disinterest that good leaders aren't prepared to stand up and lead their country.

I'm not sure what we learn from all of this, BUT I do find it all a bit concerning. Without a good, fair, robust, democratic process and a good choice of leaders I see the possibility of anarchy, and that's no good for anyone.

Sideface:

 

Trump lost the second debate, but he is improving.

 

He didn't give a direct answer to any of the questions (surprise!) except the last one - what did he like about Hillary Clinton?

 

"She's not a quitter"

 

Politicians hardly ever answer questions, so that isn't new. I certainly didn't think he was improved. But he is really the product of a broken system worldwide, a big divide between classes and incomes. It is history repeating itself. Just hope we don't have a world war too, as it will show we haven't learnt. 

Clinton showed she was the better politician and Trump showed he was the better bully. I think that who you think won the debate will depend on which of those you side or identify with. Trump made the points that he wanted to make and worked as if the question was generally irrelevant. Clinton tried to make the points she wanted to as related to the questions. I don't think either one would have swayed any of the other's supporters to jump ship and I get the feeling that anyone who is still undecided is probably not going to vote anyway so they don't matter.

Brumfondl:

 

Clinton showed she was the better politician and Trump showed he was the better bully. I think that who you think won the debate will depend on which of those you side or identify with. Trump made the points that he wanted to make and worked as if the question was generally irrelevant. Clinton tried to make the points she wanted to as related to the questions. I don't think either one would have swayed any of the other's supporters to jump ship and I get the feeling that anyone who is still undecided is probably not going to vote anyway so they don't matter.

 

As I keep saying, the popular vote is irrelevant to the result. Only electoral votes matter. 

Technofreak:

 

All I can say, is heaven help us with either candidate, Hillary will be just as bad as Trump in different ways. At least you know what Trump thinks, you mightn't like it, but at least you know. With Hillary she tells you want you want to hear, who knows what she really thinks.

 

It's hard to believe "The Greatest Country in the West" (I say that tongue in cheek, however the USA is seen as a western democratic power house) could come up with two nominees that are so woefully inadequate as a true leader. 

 

What does it tell us? That there's a massive disinterest in the democratic process? Such disinterest that good leaders aren't prepared to stand up and lead their country.

 

I'm not sure what we learn from all of this, BUT I do find it all a bit concerning. Without a good, fair, robust, democratic process and a good choice of leaders I see the possibility of anarchy, and that's no good for anyone.

 

I can't see how Hillary will be worse or as bad. The US tends to do better economically with a Democrat President. It will basically be a smooth transition from Obama . Obama was a lame duck in the end which is often the case in the second terms.  With Trump, I feel it is more of a power trip. You can imagine him having parties, and bringing out the suitcase that has the nuke button etc.

NZ though can't really boast that we are much better than the US. We have a major problem in NZ with a disconnect from the democratic process, and very poor media coverage of what is going on in government. A lot of what is done is never reported. Especially in local government. When less that 40% of eligible voters are voting, and you are getting Mayors voted in, who less than 20% of eligible voters voted for, it is hardly a clear mandate. People I asked said they voted for the person because they had seen their hoarding and like the look of them. I mean WTH? They need compulsory voting in NZ, and the answer is to actually pay people to vote, and have it online, and this can easily be funded.  Then you will get most people voting.I don't think too many people will turn down $50 to cast their vote.

networkn: As I keep saying, the popular vote is irrelevant to the result. Only electoral votes matter. 

Isn't the electoral vote awarded based on the popular vote (per state, obviously)? So whoever wins the popular vote in the large/important states, like California, wins the election.

What really matters is who controls the House and the Senate. If the Republicans retain control and Clinton wins then she'll have a hard time no matter what. Same if the Democrats take them and Trump wins. What would be really instereting is if Trump wins with a Republican majority who really don't like him.

I really can't see how a republican leader who isn't widely supported by the party, can ever become leader. But it is the US, so anything is possible. But I can't see him winning now , as  I can see story leaks on various things will continue to occur.

As was stated early in this thread, the only person who can defeat Donald Trump is Donald Trump.

And he's doing a pretty good job of it. 

mattwnz:

 

 

 

I can't see how Hillary will be worse or as bad. The US tends to do better economically with a Democrat President. It will basically be a smooth transition from Obama . Obama was a lame duck in the end which is often the case in the second terms.  With Trump, I feel it is more of a power trip. You can imagine him having parties, and bringing out the suitcase that has the nuke button etc.

 

 

 

NZ though can't really boast that we are much better than the US. We have a major problem in NZ with a disconnect from the democratic process, and very poor media coverage of what is going on in government. A lot of what is done is never reported. Especially in local government. When less that 40% of eligible voters are voting, and you are getting Mayors voted in, who less than 20% of eligible voters voted for, it is hardly a clear mandate. People I asked said they voted for the person because they had seen their hoarding and like the look of them. I mean WTH? They need compulsory voting in NZ, and the answer is to actually pay people to vote, and have it online, and this can easily be funded.  Then you will get most people voting.I don't think too many people will turn down $50 to cast their vote.

 

Hillary's problem is she brings more of the same smooth transition or not. It's because of people like her that Trump has done so well.

The problems surrounding the status quo won't go away with Hillary they are likely to get worse. I'm not saying Trump will fix them either. Trump does bring some hope of change to the status quo. What I do think might happen if he got elected is it might galvanise some action to make changes that would see decent candidates next time. I see him as one term President.

New Zealand's electoral system isn't saddled with the electoral collage vote like the US has.  The man in the streets vote isn't diluted by party delegates. We've seen that with the internal Labour party leadership selection process, and what that served up, a disaster for the Labour Party. Perhaps we could show the US a thing or two about electing a President.

Getting people to turn out is a problem I agree, but compulsory voting doesn't fix the problem, in some respects it makes it worse. The problem is for the average person to know who is a good choice as a candidate, especially in Local Body elections. There's so many choices that very often voters don't bother as it's too hard to make a proper choice.

So often it's the person with the biggest advertising budget who wins as they have their name as top of mind when voters make their choice.  Big wallets do not necessarily make good representatives.

With compulsory voting you end up with a good deal of votes where the voter just ticks the top names until they have selected sufficient candidates, they cannot be bothered spending the time to vote properly. You can't tell me this gives a good outcome.  

The answer is to get the average person more engaged in what is happening, then they will vote.

Brumfondl:

 

What would be really instereting is if Trump wins with a Republican majority who really don't like him.

 

That is where Trump will have to tone down his rhetoric. He'll have about as much chance of doing stuff they don't like as would a Democrat President.

That's why I don't think Trump will be able to cause as much damage as some people think.

mattwnz:

 

I really can't see how a republican leader who isn't widely supported by the party, can ever become leader. But it is the US, so anything is possible. But I can't see him winning now , as  I can see story leaks on various things will continue to occur.

 

You might recall there were some "leaks" prior to our last General Election, they back fired on the leakees to some extent. I wouldn't necessarily place too much hope on any leaks having a big effect on the outcome. Also those in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.  You can be sure if there's dirt on Trump there's dirt on Clinton too.